Python functions can be given new attributes from

Question

I didn't know you could do this:

def tom():
    print "tom's locals: ", locals()

def dick(z):
    print "z.__name__ = ", z.__name__
    z.guest = "Harry"
    print "z.guest = ", z.guest
    print "dick's locals: ", locals()

tom()              #>>> tom's locals:  {}
#print tom.guest    #AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'guest'
print "tom's dir:", dir(tom)  # no 'guest' entry

dick( tom)         #>>> z.__name__ =  tom
                   #>>> z.guest =  Harry
                   #>>> dick's locals:  {'z': <function tom at 0x02819F30>}
tom()              #>>> tom's locals:  {}
#print dick.guest  #AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'guest'

print tom.guest    #>>> Harry
print "tom's dir:", dir(tom)  # 'guest' entry appears

Function tom() has no locals. Function dick() knows where tom() lives and puts up Harry as 'guest' over at tom()'s place. harry doesn't appear as a local at tom()'s place, but if you ask for tom's guest, harry answers. harry is a new attribute at tom().

UPDATE: From outside tom(), you can say "print dir(tom)" and see the the tom-object's dictionary. (You can do it from inside tom(), too. So tom could find out he had a new lodger, harry, going under the name of 'guest'.)

So, attributes can be added to a function's namespace from outside the function? Is that often done? Is it acceptable practice? Is it recommended in some situations? Is it actually vital at times? (Is it Pythonic?)

UPDATE: Title now says 'attributes'; it used to say 'variables'. Here's a PEP about Function Attributes.

Answer 1

@behindthefall, the motivation to give function objects generic assignable attributes (they didn't use to have them) was that, absent such possibilities, real and popular frameworks were abusing what few assignable attributes existed (typically __doc__) to record information about each given function object. So there was clearly a "pent-up demand" for this functionality, so Guido decided to address it directly (adding an optional dict to each function object to record its attributes isn't a big deal -- most function objects don't need it, and it is optional, so the cost is just 4 bytes for a null pointer;-).

Assigning such attributes in arbitrary places would be very bad practice, making the code harder to understand for no real benefit, but they're very useful when used in a controlled way -- for example, a decorator could usefully record all kinds of things about the function being decorated, and the context in which the decoration occurred, as attributes of the wrapper function, allowing trivially-easy introspection of such metadata to occur later at any time, as needed.

As other answers already pointed out, local variables (which are per-instance, not per-function object!) are a completely disjoint namespace from a function object's attributes held in its __dict__.