Type of an object: ‘obj.__class__’ versus ‘type(obj)’

[dieter]

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> writes:

> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:51:21 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> ... "type(obj)" versus "obj.__class__"
> That is an excellent question, I only wish I had an excellent answer to 
> give you. Obviously great minds think alike because I was going to ask 
> the same question, prompted by this comment from Nick Coghlan on the 
> python-dev list:
>
> "...type(obj).__name__ (working with the concrete type, ignoring any
> proxying) or obj.__class__.__name__ (which takes proxying into 
> account)..."
>
> So there is a difference between them, but I'm not entirely sure what it 
> is.

I understand the difference: sometimes you work with proxies
(e.g. "weakref" proxies). A proxie should work mostly like the proxied
object - but in rare cases, you want to detect that what you have
is actually a proxie rather than the real object.
You can use "type(obj)" to check the real type ob "obj" (in some
sense, it is more direct - more reliable; giving you the real
type of "obj"). "obj.__class__" on the other hand uses standard
attribute access - and proxying may have customized attribute access
to access the proxied object's attributes rather than its own: then
"obj.__class__" would give you not the type of "obj" (the proxie)
but that of the proxied object.