Develop Reference

Is there an equivalent to Julia's eval(parse(String)) in python? [duplicate]

How do I execute a string containing Python code in Python?
Do not ever use eval (or exec) on data that could possibly come from outside the program in any form. It is a critical security risk. You allow the author of the data to run arbitrary code on your computer. If you are here because you want to create multiple variables in your Python program following a pattern, you almost certainly have an XY problem. Do not create those variables at all - instead, use a list or dict appropriately.

For statements, use exec(string) (Python 2/3) or exec string (Python 2):
>>> my_code = 'print("hello world")'
>>> exec(my_code)
Hello world
When you need the value of an expression, use eval(string):
>>> x = eval("2+2")
>>> x
4
However, the first step should be to ask yourself if you really need to. Executing code should generally be the position of last resort: It's slow, ugly and dangerous if it can contain user-entered code. You should always look at alternatives first, such as higher order functions, to see if these can better meet your needs.

In the example a string is executed as code using the exec function.
import sys
import StringIO
# create file-like string to capture output
codeOut = StringIO.StringIO()
codeErr = StringIO.StringIO()
code = """
def f(x):
x = x + 1
return x
print 'This is my output.'
"""
# capture output and errors
sys.stdout = codeOut
sys.stderr = codeErr
exec code
# restore stdout and stderr
sys.stdout = sys.__stdout__
sys.stderr = sys.__stderr__
print f(4)
s = codeErr.getvalue()
print "error:\n%s\n" % s
s = codeOut.getvalue()
print "output:\n%s" % s
codeOut.close()
codeErr.close()

eval and exec are the correct solution, and they can be used in a safer manner.
As discussed in Python's reference manual and clearly explained in this tutorial, the eval and exec functions take two extra parameters that allow a user to specify what global and local functions and variables are available.
For example:
public_variable = 10
private_variable = 2
def public_function():
return "public information"
def private_function():
return "super sensitive information"
# make a list of safe functions
safe_list = ['public_variable', 'public_function']
safe_dict = dict([ (k, locals().get(k, None)) for k in safe_list ])
# add any needed builtins back in
safe_dict['len'] = len
>>> eval("public_variable+2", {"__builtins__" : None }, safe_dict)
12
>>> eval("private_variable+2", {"__builtins__" : None }, safe_dict)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'private_variable' is not defined
>>> exec("print \"'%s' has %i characters\" % (public_function(), len(public_function()))", {"__builtins__" : None}, safe_dict)
'public information' has 18 characters
>>> exec("print \"'%s' has %i characters\" % (private_function(), len(private_function()))", {"__builtins__" : None}, safe_dict)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'private_function' is not defined
In essence you are defining the namespace in which the code will be executed.

Remember that from version 3 exec is a function!
so always use exec(mystring) instead of exec mystring.

Avoid exec and eval
Using exec and eval in Python is highly frowned upon.
There are better alternatives
From the top answer (emphasis mine):
For statements, use exec.
When you need the value of an expression, use eval.
However, the first step should be to ask yourself if you really need to. Executing code should generally be the position of last resort: It's slow, ugly and dangerous if it can contain user-entered code. You should always look at alternatives first, such as higher order functions, to see if these can better meet your needs.
From Alternatives to exec/eval?
set and get values of variables with the names in strings
[while eval] would work, it is generally not advised to use variable names bearing a meaning to the program itself.
Instead, better use a dict.
It is not idiomatic
From http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/2/1/exec-in-python/ (emphasis mine)
Python is not PHP
Don't try to circumvent Python idioms because some other language does it differently. Namespaces are in Python for a reason and just because it gives you the tool exec it does not mean you should use that tool.
It is dangerous
From http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201206/eval_really_is_dangerous.html (emphasis mine)
So eval is not safe, even if you remove all the globals and the builtins!
The problem with all of these attempts to protect eval() is that they are blacklists. They explicitly remove things that could be dangerous. That is a losing battle because if there's just one item left off the list, you can attack the system.
So, can eval be made safe? Hard to say. At this point, my best guess is that you can't do any harm if you can't use any double underscores, so maybe if you exclude any string with double underscores you are safe. Maybe...
It is hard to read and understand
From http://stupidpythonideas.blogspot.it/2013/05/why-evalexec-is-bad.html (emphasis mine):
First, exec makes it harder to human beings to read your code. In order to figure out what's happening, I don't just have to read your code, I have to read your code, figure out what string it's going to generate, then read that virtual code. So, if you're working on a team, or publishing open source software, or asking for help somewhere like StackOverflow, you're making it harder for other people to help you. And if there's any chance that you're going to be debugging or expanding on this code 6 months from now, you're making it harder for yourself directly.

eval() is just for expressions, while eval('x+1') works, eval('x=1') won't work for example. In that case, it's better to use exec, or even better: try to find a better solution :)

It's worth mentioning that exec's brother exists as well, called execfile, if you want to call a Python file. That is sometimes good if you are working in a third party package which have terrible IDE's included and you want to code outside of their package.
Example:
execfile('/path/to/source.py')
or:
exec(open("/path/to/source.py").read())

You accomplish executing code using exec, as with the following IDLE session:
>>> kw = {}
>>> exec( "ret = 4" ) in kw
>>> kw['ret']
4

As the others mentioned, it's "exec" ..
but, in case your code contains variables, you can use "global" to access it, also to prevent the compiler to raise the following error:
NameError: name 'p_variable' is not defined
exec('p_variable = [1,2,3,4]')
global p_variable
print(p_variable)

I tried quite a few things, but the only thing that worked was the following:
temp_dict = {}
exec("temp_dict['val'] = 10")
print(temp_dict['val'])
output:
10

Use eval.

Check out eval:
x = 1
print eval('x+1')
->2

The most logical solution would be to use the built-in eval() function .Another solution is to write that string to a temporary python file and execute it.

Ok .. I know this isn't exactly an answer, but possibly a note for people looking at this as I was. I wanted to execute specific code for different users/customers but also wanted to avoid the exec/eval. I initially looked to storing the code in a database for each user and doing the above.
I ended up creating the files on the file system within a 'customer_filters' folder and using the 'imp' module, if no filter applied for that customer, it just carried on
import imp
def get_customer_module(customerName='default', name='filter'):
lm = None
try:
module_name = customerName+"_"+name;
m = imp.find_module(module_name, ['customer_filters'])
lm = imp.load_module(module_name, m[0], m[1], m[2])
except:
''
#ignore, if no module is found,
return lm
m = get_customer_module(customerName, "filter")
if m is not None:
m.apply_address_filter(myobj)
so customerName = "jj"
would execute apply_address_filter from the customer_filters\jj_filter.py file

Python string interpolation implementation

[EDIT 00]: I've edited several times the post and now even the title, please read below.
I just learned about the format string method, and its use with dictionaries, like the ones provided by vars(), locals() and globals(), example:
name = 'Ismael'
print 'My name is {name}.'.format(**vars())
But I want to do:
name = 'Ismael'
print 'My name is {name}.' # Similar to ruby
So I came up with this:
def mprint(string='', dictionary=globals()):
print string.format(**dictionary)
You can interact with the code here:
http://labs.codecademy.com/BA0B/3#:workspace
Finally, what I would love to do is to have the function in another file, named my_print.py, so I could do:
from my_print import mprint
name= 'Ismael'
mprint('Hello! My name is {name}.')
But as it is right now, there is a problem with the scopes, how could I get the the main module namespace as a dictionary from inside the imported mprint function. (not the one from my_print.py)
I hope I made myself uderstood, if not, try importing the function from another module. (the traceback is in the link)
It's accessing the globals() dict from my_print.py, but of course the variable name is not defined in that scope, any ideas of how to accomplish this?
The function works if it's defined in the same module, but notice how I must use globals() because if not I would only get a dictionary with the values within mprint() scope.
I have tried using nonlocal and dot notation to access the main module variables, but I still can't figure it out.
[EDIT 01]: I think I've figured out a solution:
In my_print.py:
def mprint(string='',dictionary=None):
if dictionary is None:
import sys
caller = sys._getframe(1)
dictionary = caller.f_locals
print string.format(**dictionary)
In test.py:
from my_print import mprint
name = 'Ismael'
country = 'Mexico'
languages = ['English', 'Spanish']
mprint("Hello! My name is {name}, I'm from {country}\n"
"and I can speak {languages[1]} and {languages[0]}.")
It prints:
Hello! My name is Ismael, I'm from Mexico
and I can speak Spanish and English.
What do you think guys? That was a difficult one for me!
I like it, much more readable for me.
[EDIT 02]: I've made a module with an interpolate function, an Interpolate class and an attempt for a interpolate class method analogous to the function.
It has a small test suite and its documented!
I'm stuck with the method implementation, I don't get it.
Here's the code: http://pastebin.com/N2WubRSB
What do you think guys?
[EDIT 03]: Ok I have settled with just the interpolate() function for now.
In string_interpolation.py:
import sys
def get_scope(scope):
scope = scope.lower()
caller = sys._getframe(2)
options = ['l', 'local', 'g', 'global']
if scope not in options[:2]:
if scope in options[2:]:
return caller.f_globals
else:
raise ValueError('invalid mode: {0}'.format(scope))
return caller.f_locals
def interpolate(format_string=str(),sequence=None,scope='local',returns=False):
if type(sequence) is str:
scope = sequence
sequence = get_scope(scope)
else:
if not sequence:
sequence = get_scope(scope)
format = 'format_string.format(**sequence)'
if returns is False:
print eval(format)
elif returns is True:
return eval(format)
Thanks again guys! Any opinions?
[EDIT 04]:
This is my last version, it has a test, docstrings and describes some limitations I've found:
http://pastebin.com/ssqbbs57
You can quickly test the code here:
http://labs.codecademy.com/BBMF#:workspace
And clone grom git repo here:
https://github.com/Ismael-VC/python_string_interpolation.git

Modules don't share namespaces in python, so globals() for my_print is always going to be the globals() of my_print.py file ; i.e the location where the function was actually defined.
def mprint(string='', dic = None):
dictionary = dic if dic is not None else globals()
print string.format(**dictionary)
You should pass the current module's globals() explicitly to make it work.
Ans don't use mutable objects as default values in python functions, it can result in unexpected results. Use None as default value instead.
A simple example for understanding scopes in modules:
file : my_print.py
x = 10
def func():
global x
x += 1
print x
file : main.py
from my_print import *
x = 50
func() #prints 11 because for func() global scope is still
#the global scope of my_print file
print x #prints 50

Part of your problem - well, the reason its not working - is highlighted in this question.
You can have your function work by passing in globals() as your second argument, mprint('Hello my name is {name}',globals()).
Although it may be convenient in Ruby, I would encourage you not to write Ruby in Python if you want to make the most out of the language.

Language Design Is Not Just Solving Puzzles: ;)
http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106&thread=147358
Edit: PEP-0498 solves this issue!
The Template class from the string module, also does what I need (but more similar to the string format method), in the end it also has the readability I seek, it also has the recommended explicitness, it's in the Standard Library and it can also be easily customized and extended.
http://docs.python.org/2/library/string.html?highlight=template#string.Template
from string import Template
name = 'Renata'
place = 'hospital'
job = 'Dr.'
how = 'glad'
header = '\nTo Ms. {name}:'
letter = Template("""
Hello Ms. $name.
I'm glad to inform, you've been
accepted in our $place, and $job Red
will ${how}ly recieve you tomorrow morning.
""")
print header.format(**vars())
print letter.substitute(vars())
The funny thing is that now I'm getting more fond of using {} instead of $ and I still like the string_interpolation module I came up with, because it's less typing than either one in the long run. LOL!
Run the code here:
http://labs.codecademy.com/BE3n/3#:workspace

Call python function as if it were inline

I want to have a function in a different module, that when called, has access to all variables that its caller has access to, and functions just as if its body had been pasted into the caller rather than having its own context, basically like a C Macro instead of a normal function. I know I can pass locals() into the function and then it can access the local variables as a dict, but I want to be able to access them normally (eg x.y, not x["y"] and I want all names the caller has access to not just the locals, as well as things that were 'imported' into the caller's file but not into the module that contains the function.
Is this possible to pull off?
Edit 2 Here's the simplest possible example I can come up with of what I'm really trying to do:
def getObj(expression)
ofs = expression.rfind(".")
obj = eval(expression[:ofs])
print "The part of the expression Left of the period is of type ", type(obj),
Problem is that 'expression' requires the imports and local variables of the caller in order to eval without error.In reality theres a lot more than just an eval, so I'm trying to avoid the solution of just passing locals() in and through to the eval() since that won't fix my general case problem.

And another, even uglier way to do it -- please don't do this, even if it's possible --
import sys
def insp():
l = sys._getframe(1).f_locals
expression = l["expression"]
ofs = expression.rfind(".")
expofs = expression[:ofs]
obj = eval(expofs, globals(), l)
print "The part of the expression %r Left of the period (%r) is of type %r" % (expression, expofs, type(obj)),
def foo():
derp = 5
expression = "derp.durr"
insp()
foo()
outputs
The part of the expression 'derp.durr' Left of the period ('derp') is of type (type 'int')

I don't presume this is the answer that you wanted to hear, but trying to access local variables from a caller module's scope is not a good idea. If you normally program in PHP or C, you might be used to this sort of thing?
If you still want to do this, you might consider creating a class and passing an instance of that class in place of locals():
#other_module.py
def some_func(lcls):
print(lcls.x)
Then,
>>> import other_module
>>>
>>>
>>> x = 'Hello World'
>>>
>>> class MyLocals(object):
... def __init__(self, lcls):
... self.lcls = lcls
... def __getattr__(self, name):
... return self.lcls[name]
...
>>> # Call your function with an instance of this instead.
>>> other_module.some_func(MyLocals(locals()))
'Hello World'
Give it a whirl.

Is this possible to pull off?
Yes (sort of, in a very roundabout way) which I would strongly advise against it in general (more on that later).
Consider:
myfile.py
def func_in_caller():
print "in caller"
import otherfile
globals()["imported_func"] = otherfile.remote_func
imported_func(123, globals())
otherfile.py
def remote_func(x1, extra):
for k,v in extra.iteritems():
globals()[k] = v
print x1
func_in_caller()
This yields (as expected):
123
in caller
What we're doing here is trickery: we just copy every item into another namespace in order to make this work. This can (and will) break very easily and/or lead to hard to find bugs.
There's almost certainly a better way of solving your problem / structuring your code (we need more information in general on what you're trying to achieve).

From The Zen of Python:
2) Explicit is better than implicit.
In other words, pass in the parameter and don't try to get really fancy just because you think it would be easier for you. Writing code is not just about you.

Use of eval in Python?

There is an eval() function in Python I stumbled upon while playing around. I cannot think of a case when this function is needed, except maybe as syntactic sugar. Can anyone give an example?

eval and exec are handy quick-and-dirty way to get some source code dynamically, maybe munge it a bit, and then execute it -- but they're hardly ever the best way, especially in production code as opposed to "quick-and-dirty" prototypes &c.
For example, if I had to deal with such dynamic Python sources, I'd reach for the ast module -- ast.literal_eval is MUCH safer than eval (you can call it directly on a string form of the expression, if it's a one-off and relies on simple constants only, or do node = ast.parse(source) first, then keep the node around, perhaps munge it with suitable visitors e.g. for variable lookup, then literal_eval the node) -- or, once having put the node in proper shape and vetted it for security issues, I could compile it (yielding a code object) and build a new function object out of that. Far less simple (except that ast.literal_eval is just as simple as eval for the simplest cases!) but safer and preferable in production-quality code.
For many tasks I've seen people (ab-)use exec and eval for, Python's powerful built-ins, such as getattr and setattr, indexing into globals(), &c, provide preferable and in fact often simpler solutions. For specific uses such as parsing JSON, library modules such as json are better (e.g. see SilentGhost's comment on tinnitus' answer to this very question). Etc, etc...

The Wikipedia article on eval is pretty informative, and details various uses.
Some of the uses it suggests are:
Evaluating mathematical expressions
Compiler bootstrapping
Scripting (dynamic languages in general are very suitable to this)
Language tutors

You may want to use it to allow users to enter their own "scriptlets": small expressions (or even small functions), that can be used to customize the behavior of a complex system.
In that context, and if you do not have to care too much for the security implications (e.g. you have an educated userbase), then eval() may be a good choice.

In the past I have used eval() to add a debugging interface to my application. I created a telnet service which dropped you into the environment of the running application. Inputs were run through eval() so you can interactively run Python commands in the application.

In a program I once wrote, you had an input file where you could specify geometric parameters both as values and as python expressions of the previous values, eg:
a=10.0
b=5.0
c=math.log10(a/b)
A python parser read this input file and obtained the final data evaluating the values and the expressions using eval().
I don't claim it to be good programming, but I did not have to drive a nuclear reactor.

I use it as a quick JSON parser ...
r='''
{
"glossary": {
"title": "example glossary"
}
}
'''
print eval(r)['glossary']['title']

You can use eval in a decorator:
#this replaces the original printNumber with a lambda-function,
#which takes no arguments and which calls the old function with
#the number 10
#eval("lambda fun: lambda: fun(10)")
def printNumber(i: int) -> None:
print("The number is %i", i)
#call
printNumber()
while you cannot use complex expressions like
#lambda fun: lambda: fun(10)
def ...
nor
#(lambda fun: lambda: fun(10))
def ...
You cannot use a lambda-expression there, because the decorator should either be an identifier:
#myModule.functionWithOneArg
or a function call:
#functionReturningFunctionWithOneArg(any, "args")
You see that the call of the function eval with a string has valid syntax here, but the lambda-expression not. (-> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/compound_stmts.html#function-definitions)

eval() is not normally very useful. One of the few things I have used it for (well, it was exec() actually, but it's pretty similar) was allowing the user to script an application that I wrote in Python. If it were written in something like C++, I would have to embed a Python interpreter in the application.

Eval is a way to interact with the Python interpreter from within a program. You can pass literals to eval and it evaluates them as python expressions.
For example -
print eval("__import__('os').getcwd()")
would return the current working directory.
cheers

eval() is for single sentence, while exec() is for multiple ones.
usually we use them to add or visit some scripts just like bash shell.
because of they can run some byte scripts in the memory, if you have some important data or script you can decode and unzip your 'secret' then do everything you wanna.

I just came across a good use of eval. I was writing a test suite for some code, and created a Test class, where every method was a test to be run. I wanted a way so that I could run all the test methods without having to call each method individually. So, I wrote something rather dirty.
class Test:
def __init__(self, *args):
#bs
def test1(self):
#bs
def test2(self):
#bs
if __name__ == "__main__":
import argparse
#argparse bs
test = Test(*bs_args)
for func in (i for i in dir(test) if i[0] != '_' and i not in test.__dict__):
print(eval('test.{func}()'.format(func = func)))
Dynamic evaluation of arbitrary test cases is pretty cool. I just have to write the method, and after saving I can include the method in my test suite. As for the code, I basically just inspect the methods defined in the test object, and make sure they aren't default python "magic" methods or attributes to the Test object. After that I can assume they are methods and can be evaluated.

I used it to input variable values to the main program:
test.py var1=2 var2=True
...
var1=0
var2=False
for arg in sys.argv[1:]:
exec(arg)
A crude way to allow keyword args in the main program. If there's a better way let me know!

I had a case where I used eval in combination with an informix database. For some reason the query returned a string formed like this
query_result = "['1', '2', '3']"
I just used eval on the query result so python interpreted it as a list of strings.
[int(i) for i in eval(query_result)]
> [1,2,3]
I could not change the db so this was a quick (and dirty) way to get the integers.

I use exec to create a system of plugins in Python.
try:
exec ("from " + plugin_name + " import Plugin")
myplugin = Plugin(module_options, config=config)
except ImportError, message:
fatal ("No such module " + plugin_name + \
" (or no Plugin constructor) in my Python path: " + str(message))
except Exception:
fatal ("Module " + plugin_name + " cannot be loaded: " + \
str(sys.exc_type) + ": " + str(sys.exc_value) + \
".\n May be a missing or erroneous option?")
With a plugin like:
class Plugin:
def __init__ (self):
pass
def query(self, arg):
...
You will be able to call it like:
result = myplugin.query("something")
I do not think you can have plugins in Python without exec/eval.

How do I execute a string containing Python code in Python?

How do I execute a string containing Python code in Python?
Do not ever use eval (or exec) on data that could possibly come from outside the program in any form. It is a critical security risk. You allow the author of the data to run arbitrary code on your computer. If you are here because you want to create multiple variables in your Python program following a pattern, you almost certainly have an XY problem. Do not create those variables at all - instead, use a list or dict appropriately.

For statements, use exec(string) (Python 2/3) or exec string (Python 2):
>>> my_code = 'print("hello world")'
>>> exec(my_code)
Hello world
When you need the value of an expression, use eval(string):
>>> x = eval("2+2")
>>> x
4
However, the first step should be to ask yourself if you really need to. Executing code should generally be the position of last resort: It's slow, ugly and dangerous if it can contain user-entered code. You should always look at alternatives first, such as higher order functions, to see if these can better meet your needs.

In the example a string is executed as code using the exec function.
import sys
import StringIO
# create file-like string to capture output
codeOut = StringIO.StringIO()
codeErr = StringIO.StringIO()
code = """
def f(x):
x = x + 1
return x
print 'This is my output.'
"""
# capture output and errors
sys.stdout = codeOut
sys.stderr = codeErr
exec code
# restore stdout and stderr
sys.stdout = sys.__stdout__
sys.stderr = sys.__stderr__
print f(4)
s = codeErr.getvalue()
print "error:\n%s\n" % s
s = codeOut.getvalue()
print "output:\n%s" % s
codeOut.close()
codeErr.close()

eval and exec are the correct solution, and they can be used in a safer manner.
As discussed in Python's reference manual and clearly explained in this tutorial, the eval and exec functions take two extra parameters that allow a user to specify what global and local functions and variables are available.
For example:
public_variable = 10
private_variable = 2
def public_function():
return "public information"
def private_function():
return "super sensitive information"
# make a list of safe functions
safe_list = ['public_variable', 'public_function']
safe_dict = dict([ (k, locals().get(k, None)) for k in safe_list ])
# add any needed builtins back in
safe_dict['len'] = len
>>> eval("public_variable+2", {"__builtins__" : None }, safe_dict)
12
>>> eval("private_variable+2", {"__builtins__" : None }, safe_dict)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'private_variable' is not defined
>>> exec("print \"'%s' has %i characters\" % (public_function(), len(public_function()))", {"__builtins__" : None}, safe_dict)
'public information' has 18 characters
>>> exec("print \"'%s' has %i characters\" % (private_function(), len(private_function()))", {"__builtins__" : None}, safe_dict)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'private_function' is not defined
In essence you are defining the namespace in which the code will be executed.

Remember that from version 3 exec is a function!
so always use exec(mystring) instead of exec mystring.

Avoid exec and eval
Using exec and eval in Python is highly frowned upon.
There are better alternatives
From the top answer (emphasis mine):
For statements, use exec.
When you need the value of an expression, use eval.
However, the first step should be to ask yourself if you really need to. Executing code should generally be the position of last resort: It's slow, ugly and dangerous if it can contain user-entered code. You should always look at alternatives first, such as higher order functions, to see if these can better meet your needs.
From Alternatives to exec/eval?
set and get values of variables with the names in strings
[while eval] would work, it is generally not advised to use variable names bearing a meaning to the program itself.
Instead, better use a dict.
It is not idiomatic
From http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/2/1/exec-in-python/ (emphasis mine)
Python is not PHP
Don't try to circumvent Python idioms because some other language does it differently. Namespaces are in Python for a reason and just because it gives you the tool exec it does not mean you should use that tool.
It is dangerous
From http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201206/eval_really_is_dangerous.html (emphasis mine)
So eval is not safe, even if you remove all the globals and the builtins!
The problem with all of these attempts to protect eval() is that they are blacklists. They explicitly remove things that could be dangerous. That is a losing battle because if there's just one item left off the list, you can attack the system.
So, can eval be made safe? Hard to say. At this point, my best guess is that you can't do any harm if you can't use any double underscores, so maybe if you exclude any string with double underscores you are safe. Maybe...
It is hard to read and understand
From http://stupidpythonideas.blogspot.it/2013/05/why-evalexec-is-bad.html (emphasis mine):
First, exec makes it harder to human beings to read your code. In order to figure out what's happening, I don't just have to read your code, I have to read your code, figure out what string it's going to generate, then read that virtual code. So, if you're working on a team, or publishing open source software, or asking for help somewhere like StackOverflow, you're making it harder for other people to help you. And if there's any chance that you're going to be debugging or expanding on this code 6 months from now, you're making it harder for yourself directly.

eval() is just for expressions, while eval('x+1') works, eval('x=1') won't work for example. In that case, it's better to use exec, or even better: try to find a better solution :)

It's worth mentioning that exec's brother exists as well, called execfile, if you want to call a Python file. That is sometimes good if you are working in a third party package which have terrible IDE's included and you want to code outside of their package.
Example:
execfile('/path/to/source.py')
or:
exec(open("/path/to/source.py").read())

You accomplish executing code using exec, as with the following IDLE session:
>>> kw = {}
>>> exec( "ret = 4" ) in kw
>>> kw['ret']
4

As the others mentioned, it's "exec" ..
but, in case your code contains variables, you can use "global" to access it, also to prevent the compiler to raise the following error:
NameError: name 'p_variable' is not defined
exec('p_variable = [1,2,3,4]')
global p_variable
print(p_variable)

I tried quite a few things, but the only thing that worked was the following:
temp_dict = {}
exec("temp_dict['val'] = 10")
print(temp_dict['val'])
output:
10

Use eval.

Check out eval:
x = 1
print eval('x+1')
->2

The most logical solution would be to use the built-in eval() function .Another solution is to write that string to a temporary python file and execute it.

Ok .. I know this isn't exactly an answer, but possibly a note for people looking at this as I was. I wanted to execute specific code for different users/customers but also wanted to avoid the exec/eval. I initially looked to storing the code in a database for each user and doing the above.
I ended up creating the files on the file system within a 'customer_filters' folder and using the 'imp' module, if no filter applied for that customer, it just carried on
import imp
def get_customer_module(customerName='default', name='filter'):
lm = None
try:
module_name = customerName+"_"+name;
m = imp.find_module(module_name, ['customer_filters'])
lm = imp.load_module(module_name, m[0], m[1], m[2])
except:
''
#ignore, if no module is found,
return lm
m = get_customer_module(customerName, "filter")
if m is not None:
m.apply_address_filter(myobj)
so customerName = "jj"
would execute apply_address_filter from the customer_filters\jj_filter.py file