How do I avoid the "self.x = x; self.y = y; self.z = z" pattern in __init__?

Edit: If you have python 3.7+ just use dataclasses

A decorator solution that keeps the signature:

import decorator
import inspect
import sys


@decorator.decorator
def simple_init(func, self, *args, **kws):
    """
    @simple_init
    def __init__(self,a,b,...,z)
        dosomething()

    behaves like

    def __init__(self,a,b,...,z)
        self.a = a
        self.b = b
        ...
        self.z = z
        dosomething()
    """

    #init_argumentnames_without_self = ['a','b',...,'z']
    if sys.version_info.major == 2:
        init_argumentnames_without_self = inspect.getargspec(func).args[1:]
    else:
        init_argumentnames_without_self = tuple(inspect.signature(func).parameters.keys())[1:]

    positional_values = args
    keyword_values_in_correct_order = tuple(kws[key] for key in init_argumentnames_without_self if key in kws)
    attribute_values = positional_values + keyword_values_in_correct_order

    for attribute_name,attribute_value in zip(init_argumentnames_without_self,attribute_values):
        setattr(self,attribute_name,attribute_value)

    # call the original __init__
    func(self, *args, **kws)


class Test():
    @simple_init
    def __init__(self,a,b,c,d=4):
        print(self.a,self.b,self.c,self.d)

#prints 1 3 2 4
t = Test(1,c=2,b=3)
#keeps signature
#prints ['self', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd']
if sys.version_info.major == 2:
    print(inspect.getargspec(Test.__init__).args)
else:
    print(inspect.signature(Test.__init__))

Disclaimer: It seems that several people are concerned about presenting this solution, so I will provide a very clear disclaimer. You should not use this solution. I only provide it as information, so you know that the language is capable of this. The rest of the answer is just showing language capabilities, not endorsing using them in this way.

---

There isn't really anything wrong with explicitly copying parameters into attributes. If you have too many parameters in the ctor, it is sometimes considered a code smell and maybe you should group these params into a fewer objects. Other times, it is necessary and there is nothing wrong with it. Anyway, doing it explicitly is the way to go.

However, since you are asking HOW it can be done (and not whether it should be done), then one solution is this:

class A:
    def __init__(self, **kwargs):
        for key in kwargs:
          setattr(self, key, kwargs[key])

a = A(l=1, d=2)
a.l # will return 1
a.d # will return 2

Explicit is better than implicit ... so sure, you could make it more concise:

def __init__(self,a,b,c):
    for k,v in locals().items():
        if k != "self":
             setattr(self,k,v)

The better question is: should you?

... that said if you want a named tuple I would recommend using a namedtuple (remember tuples have certain conditions attached to them) ... perhaps you want an OrderedDict or even just a dict ...

As others have mentioned, the repetition isn't bad, but in some cases a namedtuple can be a great fit for this type of issue. This avoids using locals() or kwargs, which are usually a bad idea.

from collections import namedtuple
# declare a new object type with three properties; x y z
# the first arg of namedtuple is a typename
# the second arg is comma-separated or space-separated property names
XYZ = namedtuple("XYZ", "x, y, z")

# create an object of type XYZ. properties are in order
abc = XYZ("one", "two", 3)
print abc.x
print abc.y
print abc.z

I've found limited use for it, but you can inherit a namedtuple as with any other object (example continued):

class MySuperXYZ(XYZ):
    """ I add a helper function which returns the original properties """
    def properties(self):
        return self.x, self.y, self.z

abc2 = MySuperXYZ(4, "five", "six")
print abc2.x
print abc2.y
print abc2.z
print abc2.properties()