Develop Reference

Why method accepts class name and name 'object' as an argument?

Consider the following code, I expected it to generate error. But it worked. mydef1(self) should only be invoked with instance of MyClass1 as an argument, but it is accepting MyClass1 as well as rather vague object as instance.
Can someone explain why mydef is accepting class name(MyClass1) and object as argument?
class MyClass1:
def mydef1(self):
return "Hello"
print(MyClass1.mydef1(MyClass1))
print(MyClass1.mydef1(object))
Output
Hello
Hello

There are several parts to the answer to your question because your question signals confusion about a few different aspects of Python.
First, type names are not special in Python. They're just another variable. You can even do something like object = 5 and cause all kinds of confusion.
Secondly, the self parameter is just that, a parameter. When you say MyClass1.mydef1 you're asking for the value of the variable with the name mydef1 inside the variable (that's a module, or class, or something else that defines the __getattr__ method) MyClass1. You get back a function that takes one argument.
If you had done this:
aVar = MyClass1()
aVar.mydef1(object)
it would've failed. When Python gets a method from an instance of a class, the instance's __getattr__ method has special magic to bind the first argument to the same object the method was retrieved from. It then returns the bound method, which now takes one less argument.
I would recommend fiddling around in the interpreter and type in your MyClass1 definition, then type in MyClass1.mydef1 and aVar = MyClass1(); aVar.mydef1 and observe the difference in the results.
If you come from a language like C++ or Java, this can all seem very confusing. But, it's actually a very regular and logical structure. Everything works the same way.
Also, as people have pointed out, names have no type associated with them. The type is associated with the object the name references. So any name can reference any kind of thing. This is also referred to as 'dynamic typing'. Python is dynamically typed in another way as well. You can actually mess around with the internal structure of something and change the type of an object as well. This is fairly deep magic, and I wouldn't suggest doing it until you know what you're doing. And even then you shouldn't do it as it will just confuse everybody else.

Python is dynamically typed, so it doesn't care what gets passed. It only cares that the single required parameter gets an argument as a value. Once inside the function, you never use self, so it doesn't matter what the argument was; you can't misuse what you don't use in the first place.
This question only arises because you are taking the uncommon action of running an instance method as an unbound method with an explicit argument, rather than invoking it on an instance of the class and letting the Python runtime system take care of passing that instance as the first argument to mydef1: MyClass().mydef1() == MyClass.mydef1(MyClass()).

Python is not a statically-typed language, so you can pass to any function any objects of any data types as long as you pass in the right number of parameters, and the self argument in a class method is no different from arguments in any other function.

There is no problem with that whatsoever - self is an object like any other and may be used in any context where object of its type/behavior would be welcome.
Python - Is it okay to pass self to an external function

Hashing a Python function

def funcA(x):
return x
Is funcA.__code__.__hash__() a suitable way to check whether funcA has changed?
I know that funcA.__hash__() won't work as it the same as id(funcA) / 16. I checked and this isn't true for __code__.__hash__(). I also tested the behaviour in a ipython terminal and it seemed to hold. But is this guaranteed to work?
Why
I would like to have a way of comparing an old version of function to a new version of the same function.
I'm trying to create a decorator for disk-based/long-term caching. Thus I need a way to identify if a function has changed. I also need to look at the call graph to check that none of the called functions have changed but that is not part of this question.
Requirements:
Needs to be stable over multiple calls and machines. 1 says that in Python 3.3 hash() is randomized on each start of a new instance. Although it also says that "HASH RANDOMIZATION IS DISABLED BY DEFAULT". Ideally, I'd like a function that does is stable even with randomization enabled.
Ideally, it would yield the same hash for def funcA: pass and def funcB: pass, i.e. when only the name of the function changes. Probably not necessary.
I only care about Python 3.
One alternative would be to hash the text inside the file that contains the given function.

Yes, it seems that func_a.__code__.__hash__() is unique to the specific functionality of the code. I could not find where this is implemented, or where it is __code__.__hash__() defined.
The perfect way would be to use func_a.__code__.co_code.__hash__() because co_code has the byte code as a string. Note that in this case, the function name is not part of the hash and two functions with the same code but names func_a and func_b will have the same hash.
hash(func_a.__code__.co_code)
Source.

Functions with dependencies passed as parameters

I'm working on a project where I'm batch generating XML files which can import to the IDE of an industrial touchscreen.
Each XML file represents a screen, and most screens require the same functions and the process for dealing with them is the same, with the exception of the fact that each screen type has a unique configuration function.
I'm using a ScreenType class to hold attributes specific to a screen type, so I decided to write a unique configuration for each type, and pass it as a parameter to the __init__() of this class. This way, when I pass around my ScreenType as it is needed, it's configuration function will stay bundled and can be used whenever needed.
But I'm not sure what will happen if my configuration function itself has a dependency. For example:
def configure_inputdiag(a, b, c):
numerical_formatting = get_numerics(a)
# ...
return configured_object
Then, when it comes time to create an instance of a ScreenType
myscreentype = ScreenType(foo, man, shoe, configure_inputdiag)
get_numerics is a module scoped function, but myscreentype could (and does) get passed within other modules.
Does this create a problem with dependencies? I'd try to test it myself, but it seems like I don't have a fundamental understanding behind what's going on when I pass a function as a parameter. I don't want to draw incorrect conclusions about what's happening.
What I've tried: Googling, Search SO, and I didn't find anything specifically for Python.
Thanks in advance.

There's no problem.
The function configure_inputdiag will always refer to get_numerics in the context where it was defined. So, even if you call configure_inputdiag from some other module which knows nothing about get_numerics, it will work fine.
Passing a function as a parameter produces a reference to that function. Through that reference, you can call the function as if you had called it by name, without actually knowing the name (or the module from which it came). The reference is valid for the lifetime of the program, and will always refer to the same function. If you store the function reference, it basically becomes a different name for the same function.

What you are trying to do works in a very natural form in Python -
In the exampe above, you don't need to have the "get_numerics" function imported in the namespace (module) where the "configure_inputdiag" is - you just pass it as a normal parameter (say, call it "function") and you are going like in this example:
Module A:
def get_numerics(parm):
...
input diag = module_B.configure_inputdiag(get_numerics, a)
Module B:
def configure_inputdiag(function, parm):
result = function(parm)
Oh - I saw your doubt iwas the other waya round - anyway, there is no problem - in Python, functions are first class objects- jsut like ints and strings, and they can be passed around as parametrs to other functions in other modules as you wish. I think the example above clarifies that.

get_numerics is resolved in the scope of the function body, so it does not also need to be in the scope of the caller.

How to bind a name with multiple objects or values in python

I saw in a book about language description that says
On the other hand, a name can be bound to no object (a dangling pointer),
one object (the usual case), or several objects (a parameter name in a
recursive function).
How can we bind a name to several objects? Isnt that what we call an array for example where all elements have the same name but with index? For a recursive function like the example here:
x = 0
def f(y):
global x
x += 1
if x < 4 :
y +=100
f(y)
else: return
f(100)
Is the name y binded with multiple values that are created recursively since the nametable has already the y name binded to an initial value which is being reproduced with recursion?
EDITED Just press here Visualizer and see what it generates. :)

No.
A name is bound to one single object . When we are talking about Python - it is either bound to a single object in a given context, or do not exist at all.
What happens, is that the inner workings may have the name defined in several "layers" - but your code will only see one of those.
If a name is a variable in a recursive function, you will only see whatver is bound to it in the current running context - each time there is a function call in Python, the execution frame, which is an object which holds several attributes of the running code, including a reference to the local variables, is frozen. On the called function, a new execuciton frame is created, and there, the variable names are bound again to whatever new values they have in the called context. Your code just "see" this instance.
Then, there is the issue of global variables and builtin objects in Python: if a name is not a local variable in the function execution context, it is searched in the globals variables for the module (again, just one of those will be visible).ANd if the name is not defiend in the globals, them, Python looks for it in globals().__builtins__ that is your last call.

If I understand you correctly, you're asking about what rules Python has for creating variables in different scopes. Python uses lexical scoping on the function level.
It's hard to tell exactly what you're getting at with the code you've written, but, while there may be a different value associated with y in different scopes (with a value of y defined at each level of recursion), your code will only ever be able to see one at a time (the value defined at the scope in which you're operating).
To really understand scoping rules in Python, I would have a look at PEP 227. Also, have a look at this Stack Overflow question.
Finally, to be able to speak intelligently about what a "name" is in Python, I suggest you read about how Python is a "Call-By-Object" language.
At this point, we are capable of understanding that, instead of a "nametable", python uses a dictionary to hold what is accessible in a given scope. See this answer for a little more detail. The implication of this is that you can never have two of the same name in a single scope (for the same reason you can't have two of the same key in a python dictionary). So, while y may exist in a dictionary for a different scope, you have no way of accessing it, since you can only access the variables in the current scope's dictionary.

The key is:
several objects (a parameter name in a recursive function).
The passage is almost certainly not referring to arrays, but simply to the fact that in a recursive function (or any function, but a recursive function is likely to have multiple activations at one time), a parameter may be bound to a different value in each recursive call.
This does not mean that you can access each such object in every stack frame; indeed the point of the technique is to ensure that only one such value is accessible in each stack frame.

Firstly, you should mention in the question that the sentence from the book is not related explicitly to Python (as jsbueno wrote, one name is bound to exactly one object in Python).
Anyway, name bound to no object is a bit inaccurate. Generally, names are related to variables, and name related to a dangling pointer is the name of that pointer variable.
When speaking about the variable scope (i.e. the part of code where the variable is used), one variable name can be used only for a single value at a time. However, there may be other parts of code, independent on the one where we think about that variable. In the other part of code, the same name can be used; however, the two variables with the same name are totally isolated. This is the case of local variables also in the case of function bodies. If the language allows recursion, it must be capable to create another isolated space of local variable even for another call of the same function.
In Python, each function can also access outer variables, but it is more usual to use the inner, local variables. Whenever you assign a name some value, it is created in the local space.

GetAttr Function Problems (Python 3)

I have the following in a Python script:
setattr(stringRESULTS, "b", b)
Which gives me the following error:
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'b'
Can any-one telling me what the problem is here?

Don't do this. To quote the inestimable Greg Hewgill,
"If you ever find yourself using quoted names to refer to variables,
there's usually a better way to do whatever you're trying to do."
[Here you're one level up and using a string variable for the name, but it's the same underlying issue.] Or as S. Lott followed up with in the same thread:
"90% of the time, you should be using a dictionary. The other 10% of
the time, you need to stop what you're doing entirely."
If you're using the contents of stringRESULTS as a pointer to some object fred which you want to setattr, then these objects you want to target must already exist somewhere, and a dictionary is the natural data structure to store them. In fact, depending on your use case, you might be able to use dictionary key/value pairs instead of attributes in the first place.
IOW, my version of what (I'm guessing) you're trying to do would probably look like
d[stringRESULTS].b = b
or
d[stringRESULTS]["b"] = b
depending on whether I wanted/needed to work with an object instance or a dictionary would suffice.
(P.S. relatively few people subscribe to the python-3.x tag. You'll usually get more attention by adding the bare 'python' tag as well.)

Since str is a low-level primitive type, you can't really set any arbitrary attribute on it. You probably need either a dict or a subclass of str:
class StringResult(str):
pass
which should behave as you expect:
my_string_result = StringResult("spam_and_eggs")
my_string_result.b = b
EDIT:
If you're trying to do what DSM suggests, ie. modify a property on a variable that has the same name as the value of the stringRESULTS variable then this should do the trick:
locals()[stringRESULTS].b = b
Please note that this is an extremely dangerous operation and can wreak all kinds of havoc on your app if you aren't careful.