Is it bad practice to use a built-in function name as an attribute or method identifier?

Question

I know to never use built-in function names as variable identifiers.

But are there any reasons not to use them as attribute or method identifiers?

For example, is it safe to write my_object.id = 5, or define an instance method dict in my own class?

Furey

Related: 'id' is a bad variable name in Python – Nason

Answer 1

It won't confuse the interpreter but it may confuse people reading your code. Unnecessary use of builtin names for attributes and methods should be avoided.

Another ill-effect is that shadowing builtins confuses syntax highlighters in most python-aware editors (vi, emacs, pydev, idle, etc.) Also, some of the lint tools will warn about this practice.

Nebula

Answer 2

Yes it's bad practice. It might not immediately break anything for you, but it still hurts readability of the code.

To selectively quote from PEP20:

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Simple is better than complex.
Readability counts.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.

Seeing a call to myobject.dict() it would be natural to assume that it's going to return myobject.__dict__, or that myobject.id() returns the same thing as id(myobject)

It's possible for them to find out that they're wrong; but that will take time and effort and probably lead to some mistakes while they figure it out. Calling your attribute myobject.object_id_number is much longer, but makes it clearer that it's different to id(myobject)

Vadnais

Answer 3

No, that's fine. Since an object reference is required there is no way to have them shadow the built-in.

Exmoor

So I can use any valid identifier as an attribute name, except one starting with __, or one that's identical to a keyword? – Furey

you can use any including __something or a keyword. Well, some with __ have special meaning. – Jared

You can start them with __ so long as they also end with __. Do note that Python uses many of those for its own purposes though (such as __dict__, __init__, and __new__). – Exmoor

Is the rule that if they also end with __ they are not mangled? – Jared

@IgnacioVazquez-Abrams: oh that's precisely why I thought I shouldn't use them (who knows which are used for the language's "own purposes"). And why if I did risk using them, must I end them with __? – Furey

@max: Python Language Reference, section 3, "Data model" – Exmoor

You shouldn't start them with __ at all. __foo get's mangled, which isn't a problem if it's a private property. __foo__ signifies that it's Python internals. There is no problem with doing so, but it is bad form. – Codel

depends on what you mean by "fine". Will the code still run? Sure. Is using built-in names a bad practice and can lead to confusion? Yes, and that should be enough of a reason for anyone to avoid using built-in types/functions as variable names. – Artificiality

@icdevppl: Even as an attribute name, as the question asks? – Exmoor

Answer 4

I go back and forth on functions a lot when the input variables mimic python builtins. For example, the word bytes is a python builtin, but consider a utility library that parses bytes:

def parse_bytes(bytes):
    pass

I'd argue this has great readability, but pep8 linters don't like it. Instead I could do

def parse_bytes(bytearray):
    pass

def parse_bytes(somebytes):
    pass

Or use type hinting

def parse_bytes(b: bytes):
    pass

But all of these seem worse. Same thing happens if your variable name is input...

At the end of the day I usually go with somebytes

Poulenc

Why not bytes_? – Garrygarson