Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

[Ethan Furman]

On 3/3/23 03:32, Chris Angelico wrote:
 > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 20:44, Alan Gauld wrote:
 >> On 02/03/2023 20:54, Ian Pilcher wrote:

 >>> Seems like an FAQ, and I've found a few things on StackOverflow that
 >>> discuss the technical differences in edge cases, but I haven't found
 >>> anything that talks about which form is considered to be more Pythonic
 >>> in those situations where there's no functional difference.
 >>
 >> I think avoiding dunder methods is generally considered more Pythonic.

Outside of writing dunder methods, I tend to agree.

 >> But in this specific case using isinstance() is almost always
 >> the better option.

True.  IIRC, the only time I haven't used `isinstance` is in `Enum`, where a particular object has to be exactly a tuple 
(not a namedtuple, for example) to work correctly.

 > Using isinstance is very different from querying the type of an object
 > though. They're used for different purposes. And obj.__class__ and
 > type(obj) are different too, which is why the OP specifically narrowed
 > this down to the situations where you know they're the same.

When writing classes and subclasses, I use `obj.__class__`, `isinstance` otherwise, and rarely `type(obj)` (and then 
mostly with `tuple`s, as they're special).

~Ethan~