Type of an object: ‘obj.__class__’ versus ‘type(obj)’
ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Mon Dec 16 05:50:17 CET 2013
Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> writes:
> Generally, my answer would be, "You probably don't need the type as
> much as you think you do."
> Also, don't overlook isinstance().
> But when you do need it, type(x) is better than x.__class__, simply
> because we should always favor builtin functions over direct access of
> dunder-names where possible.
Should we expect (ignoring pathological cases) the assertion
‘type(obj) is obj.__class__’ to hold true? If not, under what
circumstances would it be sensible for those to differ?
\ “For fast acting relief, try slowing down.” —Jane Wagner, via |
`\ Lily Tomlin |
More information about the Python-list