We Keep Coding

__closure__ attribute of function object always be 'None' when defining func inside exec()

EDIT2：
A minimal demonstration is:
code = """\
a=1
def f1():
print(a)
print(f1.__closure__)
f1()
"""
def foo():
exec(code)
foo()
Which gives:
None
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:/workfiles/test_eval_rec.py", line 221, in <module>
foo()
File "D:/workfiles//test_eval_rec.py", line 219, in foo
exec(code)
File "<string>", line 5, in <module>
File "<string>", line 3, in f1
NameError: name 'a' is not defined
It can be seen that the __closure__ attribute of function defined inside code str passed to exec() is None, making calling the function fails.
Why does this happen and how can I define a function successfully?
I find several questions that may be related.
Closure lost during callback defined in exec()
Using exec() with recursive functions
Why exec() works differently when invoked inside of function and how to avoid it
Why are closures broken within exec?
NameError: name 'self' is not defined IN EXEC/EVAL
These questions are all related to "defining a function insdie exec()". I think the fourth question here is closest to the essence of these problems. The common cause of these problems is that when defining a function in exec(), the __closure__ attribute of the function object can not be set correctly and will always be None. However, many existing answers to this question didn't realize this point.
Why these questions are caused by wrong __closure__:
When defining a function, __closure__ attribute is set to a dict that contains all local symbols (at the place where the keyword def is used) that is used inside the newly defined funtion. When calling a function, local symbol tables will be retrived from the __closure__ attribute. Since the __closure__ is set to None, the local symbol tables can not be retrived as expected, making the function call fail.
These answers work by making None a correct __closure__ attribute:
Existing solutions to the questions listed above solve these problems by getting the function definition rid of the usage of local symbol, i.e, they make the local symbols used(variable, function definition) global by passing globals() as locals of exec or by using keyword global explicitly in the code string.
Why existing solution unsatisfying:
These solutions I think is just an escape of the core problem of setting __closure__ correctly when define a functioni inside exec(). And as symbols used in the function definition is made global, these solutions will produce redundant global symbol which I don't want.
Original Questions：
(You May ignore this session, I have figured something out, and what I currently want to ask is described as the session EDIT2. The original question can be viewed as a sepecial case of the question described in session EDIT2)
original title of this question is: Wrapping class function to new function with exec() raise NameError that ‘self’ is not defined
I want to wrap an existing member function to a new class function. However, exec() function failed with a NameError that ‘self’ is not defined.
I did some experiment with the following codes. I called globals() and locals() in the execed string, it seems that the locals() is different in the function definition scope when exec() is executed. "self" is in the locals() when in exec(), however, in the function definition scope inside the exec(), "self" is not in the locals().
class test_wrapper_function():
def __init__(self):
# first wrapper
def temp_func():
print("locals() inside the function definition without exec:")
print(locals())
return self.func()
print("locals() outside the function definition without exec:")
print(locals())
self.wrappered_func1 = temp_func
# third wrapper using eval
define_function_str = '''def temp_func():
print("locals() inside the function definition:")
print(locals())
print("globals() inside the function definition:")
print(globals())
return self.func()
print("locals() outside the function definition:")
print(locals())
print("globals() outside the function definition:")
print(globals())
self.wrappered_func2 = temp_func'''
exec(define_function_str)
# call locals() here, it will contains temp_func
def func(self):
print("hi!")
t = test_wrapper_function()
print("**********************************************")
t.wrappered_func1()
t.wrappered_func2()
I have read this link. In the exec(), memeber function, attribute of "self" can be accessed without problem, while in the function difinition in the exec(), "self" is not available any more. Why does this happen?
Why I want to do this:
I am building a PyQt program. I want to create several similar slots(). These slots can be generated by calling one member function with different arguments. I decided to generate these slots using exec() function of python. I also searched with the keyword "nested name scope in python exec", I found this question may be related, but there is no useful answer.
To be more specific. I want to define a family of slots like func_X (X can be 'a', 'b', 'c'...), each do something like self.do_something_on(X). Here, do_something is a member function of my QWidget. So I use a for loop to create these slots function. I used codes like this:
class MyWidget():
def __init__(self):
self.create_slots_family()
def do_something(self, character):
# in fact, this function is much more complex. Do some simplification.
print(character)
def create_slots_i(self, character):
# want to define a function like this:
# if character is 'C', define self.func_C such that self.func_C() works like self.do_something(C)
create_slot_command_str = "self.func_" + character + " = lambda:self.do_something('" + character + "')"
print(create_slot_command_str)
exec(create_slot_command_str)
def create_slots_family(self):
for c in ["A", "B", "C", "D"]:
self.create_slots_i(c)
my_widget = MyWidget()
my_widget.func_A()
Note that, as far as I know, the Qt slots should not accept any parameter, so I have to wrap self.do_something(character) to be a series function self.func_A, self.func_C and so on for all the possible characters.
So the above is what I want to do orignially.
EDIT1：
(You May ignore this session, I have figured something out, and what I currently want to ask is described as the session EDIT2. This simplified version of original question can also be viewed as a sepecial case of the question described in session EDIT2)
As #Mad Physicist suggested. I provide a simplified version here, deleting some codes used for experiments.
class test_wrapper_function():
def __init__(self):
define_function_str = '''\
def temp_func():
return self.func()
self.wrappered_func2 = temp_func'''
exec(define_function_str)
def func(self):
print("hi!")
t = test_wrapper_function()
t.wrappered_func2()
I expected this to print a "hi". However, I got the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:/workfiles/test_eval_class4.py", line 12, in <module>
t.wrappered_func2()
File "<string>", line 2, in temp_func
NameError: name 'self' is not defined

Using Exec
You've already covered most of the problems and workarounds with exec, but I feel that there is still value in adding a summary.
The key issue is that exec only knows about globals and locals, but not about free variables and the non-local namespace. That is why the docs say
If exec gets two separate objects as globals and locals, the code will be executed as if it were embedded in a class definition.
There is no way to make it run as though it were in a method body. However, as you've already noted, you can make exec create a closure and use that instead of the internal namespace by adding a method body to your snippet. However, there are still a couple of subtle restrictions there.
Your example of what you are trying to do showcases the issues perfectly, so I will use a modified version of that. The goal is to make a method that binds to self and has a variable argument in the exec string.
class Test:
def create_slots_i(self, c):
create_slot_command_str = f"self.func_{c} = lambda: self.do_something('{c}')"
exec(create_slot_command_str)
def do_something(self, c):
print(f'I did {c}!')
There are different ways of getting exec to "see" variables: literals, globals, and internal closures.
Literals. This works robustly, but only for simple types that can be easily instantiated from a string. The usage of c above is a perfect example. This will not help you with a complex object like self:
>>> t = Test()
>>> t.create_slots_i('a')
>>> t.func_a()
...
NameError: name 'self' is not defined
This happens exactly because exec has no concept of free variables. Since self is passed to it via the default locals(), it does not bind the reference to a closure.
globals. You can pass in a name self to exec via globals. There are a couple of ways of doing this, each with its own issues. Remember that globals are accessed by a function through its __globals__ (look at the table under "Callable types") attribute. Normally __globals__ refers to the __dict__ of the module in which a function is defined. In exec, this is the case by default as well, since that's what globals() returns.
Add to globals: You can create a global variable named self, which will make your problem go away, sort of:
>>> self = t
>>> t.func_a()
I did a!
But of course this is a house of cards that falls apart as soon as you delete, self, modify it, or try to run this on multiple instances:
>>> del self
>>> t.func_a()
...
NameError: name 'self' is not defined
Copy globals. A much more versatile solution, on the surface of it, is to copy globals() when you run exec in create_slots_i:
def create_slots_i(self, c):
create_slot_command_str = f"self.func_{c} = lambda: self.do_something('{c}')"
g = globals().copy()
g['self'] = self
exec(create_slot_command_str, g)
This appears to work normally, and for a very limited set of cases, it actually does:
>>> t = Test()
>>> t.create_slots_i('a')
>>> t.func_a()
I did a!
But now, your function's __globals__ attribute is no longer bound to the module you created it in. If it uses any other global values, especially ones that might change, you will not be able to see the changes. For limited functionality, this is OK, but in the general case, it can be a severe handicap.
Internal Closures. This is the solution you already hit upon, where you create a closure within the exec string to let it know that you have a free variable by artificial means. For example:
class Test:
def create_slots_i(self, c):
create_slot_command_str = f"""def make_func(self):
def func_{c}():
self.do_something('{c}')
return func_{c}
self.func_{c} = make_func(self)"""
g = globals().copy()
g['self'] = self
exec(create_slot_command_str, g)
def do_something(self, c):
print(f'I did {c}!')
This approach works completely:
>>> t = Test()
>>> t.create_slots_i('a')
>>> t.func_a()
I did a!
The only real drawbacks here are security, which is always a problem with exec, and the sheer awkwardness of this monstrosity.
A Better Way
Since you are already creating closures, there is really no need to use exec at all. In fact, the only thing you are really doing is creating methods so that self.func_... will bind the method for you, since you need a function with the signature of your slot and access to self. You can write a simple method that will generate functions that you can assign to your slots directly. The advantage of doing it this way is that (a) you avoid calling exec entirely, and (b) you don't need to have a bunch of similarly named auto-generated methods polluting your class namespace. The slot generator would look something like this:
def create_slots_i(self, c):
def slot_func():
self.do_something(c) # This is a real closure now
slot_func.__name__ = f'func_{c}'
return slot_func
Since you will not be referring to these function objects anywhere except your slots, __name__ is the only way to get the "name" under which they were stored. That is the same thing that def does for you under the hood.
You can now assign slots directly:
some_widget.some_signal.connect(self.create_slots_i('a'))
Note
I originally had a more complex approach in mind for you, since I thought you cared about generating bound methods, instead of just setting __name__. In case you have a sufficiently complex scenario where it still applies, here is my original blurb:
A quick recap of the descriptor protocol: when you bind a function with the dot operator, e.g., t.func_a, python looks at the class for descriptors with that name. If your class has a data descriptor (like property, but not functions), then that descriptor will shadow anything you may have placed in the instance __dict__. However, if you have a non-data descriptor (one a __get__ method but without a __set__ method, like a function object), then it will only be bound if an instance attribute does not shadow it. Once this decision has been made, actually invoking the descriptor protocol involves calling type(t).func_a.__get__(t). That's how a bound method knows about self.
Now you can return a bound method from within your generator:
def create_slots_i(self, c):
def slot_func(self):
self.do_something(c) # This is a closure on `c`, but not on `self` until you bind it
slot_func.__name__ = f'func_{c}'
return slot_func.__get__(self)

Why this phenomena happen:
Actually the answer of the question 4 listed above can answer this question.
When call exec() on one code string, the code string is first compiled. I suppose that during compiling, the provided globals and locals is not considered. The symbol in the exec()ed code str is compiled to be in the globals. So the function defined in the code str will be considered using global variables, and thus __closure__ is set to None.
Refer to this answer for more information about what the func exec does.
How to deal with this phenomena:
Imitating the solutions provided in the previous questions, for the minimal demostration the question, it can also be modified this way to work:
a=1 # moving out of the variable 'code'
code = """\
def f1():
print(a)
print(f1.__closure__)
f1()
"""
def foo():
exec(code)
foo()
Although the __closure__ is still None, the exception can be avoided because now only the global symbol is needed and __closure__ should also be None if correctly set. You can read the part The reason why the solutions work in the question body for more information.
This was originally added in Revision 4 of the question.

TL;DR
To set correct __closure__ attribute of function defined in the code string passed to exec() function. Just wrap the total code string with a function definition.
I provide an example here to demonstrate all possible situations. Suppose you want to define a function named foo inside a code string used by exec(). The foo use function, variables that defined inside and outside the code string:
def f1():
outside_local_variable = "this is local variable defined outside code str"
def outside_local_function():
print("this is function defined outside code str")
code = """\
local_variable = "this is local variable defined inside code str"
def local_function():
print("this is function defined inside code str")
def foo():
print(local_variable)
local_function()
print(outside_local_variable)
outside_local_function()
foo()
"""
exec(code)
f1()
It can be wrapper like this:
def f1():
outside_local_variable = "this is local variable defined outside code str"
def outside_local_function():
print("this is function defined outside code str")
code = """\
def closure_helper_func(outside_local_variable, outside_local_function):
local_variable = "this is local variable defined inside code str"
def local_function():
print("this is function defined inside code str")
def foo():
print(local_variable)
local_function()
print(outside_local_variable)
outside_local_function()
foo()
closure_helper_func(outside_local_variable, outside_local_function)
"""
exec(code)
f1()
Detailed explanation:
Why the __closure__ attribute is not corretly set:
please refer to The community wiki answer.
How to set the __closure__ attribute to what's expected:
Just wrap the whole code str with a helper function definition and call the helper function once, then during compiling, the variables are considered to be local, and will be stored in the __closure__ attribute.
For the minimal demonstration in the question, it can be modified to following:
code = """\
def closure_helper_func():
a=1
def f1():
print(a)
print(f1.__closure__)
f1()
closure_helper_func()
"""
def foo():
exec(code)
foo()
This output as expected
(<cell at 0x0000019CE6239A98: int object at 0x00007FFF42BFA1A0>,)
1
The example above provide a way to add symbols that defined in the code str to the __closure__ For example, in the minimal demo, a=1 is a defined inside the code str. But what if one want to add the local symbols defined outside the code str? For example, in the code snippet in EDIT1 session, the self symbol needs to be added to the __closure__, and the symbol is provided in the locals() when exec() is called. Just add the name of these symbols to the arguments of helper function and you can handle this situation.
The following shows how to fix the problem in EDIT1 session.
class test_wrapper_function():
def __init__(self):
define_function_str = '''\
def closure_helper_func(self):
def temp_func():
return self.func()
self.wrappered_func2 = temp_func
closure_helper_func(self)
'''
exec(define_function_str)
def func(self):
print("hi!")
t = test_wrapper_function()
t.wrappered_func2()
The following shows how to fix the codes in the session "Why I want to do this"
class MyWidget():
def __init__(self):
self.create_slots_family()
def do_something(self, character):
# in fact, this function is much more complex. Do some simplification.
print(character)
def create_slots_i(self, character):
# want to define a function like this:
# if character is 'C', define self.func_C such that self.func_C() works like self.do_something(C)
# create_slot_command_str = "self.func_" + character + " = lambda:self.do_something('" + character + "')"
create_slot_command_str = """
def closure_helper_func(self):
self.func_""" + character + " = lambda:self.do_something('" + character + """')
closure_helper_func(self)
"""
# print(create_slot_command_str)
exec(create_slot_command_str)
def create_slots_family(self):
for c in ["A", "B", "C", "D"]:
self.create_slots_i(c)
my_widget = MyWidget()
my_widget.func_A()
This solution seems to be too tricky. However, I can not find a more elegant way to declare that some variables should be local symbol during compiling.

Why is this code not throwing a 'not defined' error?

I created some test code, but I can't really understand why it works.
Shouldn't moo be defined before we can use it?
#!/usr/bin/python3
class Test():
def __init__(self):
self.printer = None
def foo(self):
self.printer = self.moo
self.printer()
def moo(self):
print("Y u printing?")
test = Test()
test.foo()
Output:
$ python test.py
Y u printing?
I know that the rule is define earlier, not higher, but in this case it's neither of those.

There's really nothing to be confused about here.
We have a function that says "when you call foo with a self parameter, look up moo in self's namespace, assign that value to printer in self's namespace, look up printer in self's namespace, and call that value".1
Unless/until you call that function, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone anywhere has an attribute named moo.
When you do call that method, whatever you pass as the self had better have a moo attribute or you're going to get an AttributeError. But this is no different from looking up an attribute on any object. If you write def spam(n): return n.bit_length() as a global function, when you call that function, whatever you pass as the n had better have a bit_length attribute or you're going to get an AttributeError.
So, we're calling it as test.foo(), so we're passing test as self. If you know how attribute lookup works (and there are already plenty of questions and answers on SO about that), you can trace this through. Slightly oversimplified:
Does test.__dict__ have a 'moo'? No.
Does type(test).__dict__ have a 'moo'? Yes. So we're done.
Again, this is the same way we check if 3 has a bit_length() method; there's no extra magic here.
That's really all there is to it.
In particular, notice that test.__dict__ does not have a 'moo'. Methods don't get created at construction time (__new__) any more than they get created at initialization time (__init__). The instance doesn't have any methods in it, because it doesn't have to; they can be looked up on the type.2
Sure, we could get into descriptors, and method resolution order, and object.__getattribute__, and how class and def statements are compiled and executed, and special method lookup to see if there's a custom __getattribute__, and so on, but you don't need any of that to understand this question.
1. If you're confused by this, it's probably because you're thinking in terms of semi-OO languages like C++ and its descendants, where a class has to specify all of its instances' attributes and methods, so the compiler can look at this->moo(), work out that this has a static type ofFoo, work out thatmoois the third method defined onFoo, and compile it into something likethis->vptr2`. If that's what you're expecting, forget all of it. In Python, methods are just attributes, and attributes are just looked up, by name, on demand.
2. If you're going to ask "then why is a bound method not the same thing as a function?", the answer is descriptors. Briefly: when an attribute is found on the type, Python calls the value's __get__ method, passing it the instance, and function objects' __get__ methods return method objects. So, if you want to refer specifically to bound method objects, then they get created every time a method is looked up. In particular, the bound method object does not exist yet when we call foo; it gets created by looking up self.moo inside foo.

While all that #scharette says is likely true (I don't know enough of Python internals to agree with confidence :) ), I'd like to propose an alternative explanation as to why one can instantiate Test and call foo():
The method's body is not executed until you actually call it. It does not matter if foo() contains references to undefined attributes, it will be parsed fine. As long as you create moo before you call foo, you're ok.
Try entering a truncated Test class in your interpreter:
class Test():
def __init__(self):
self.printer = None
def foo(self):
self.printer = self.moo
self.printer()
No moo, so we get this:
>>> test = Test()
>>> test.foo()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 5, in foo
Let's add moo to the class now:
>>> def moo(self):
... print("Y u printing?")
...
>>> Test.moo = moo
>>> test1 = Test()
>>> test1.foo()
Y u printing?
>>>
Alternatively, you can add moo directly to the instance:
>>> def moo():
... print("Y u printing?")
...
>>> test.moo = moo
>>> test.foo()
Y u printing?
The only difference is that the instance's moo does not take a self (see here for explanation).

Can't view variables within a static method

EDIT:
Ok so here is the background. I am trying to understand code written by a coworker. He has specifically written the code in the format of this example:
>>> class A:
#staticmethod
def ok(abc):
thebigone=abc
(This is a simplification but the style is the same. Namely, a variable was declared in a #staticmethod within a class)
So since I am new to his code, I wanted to see what type of data thebigone was.I called the function in the shell and tried to use the to return the contents of this variable. I ran the function ok and then tried to use the shell to print the contents of the variable thebigone but the shell returned a definition error.
Here are the commands I tried in the shell:
>>> class A:
#staticmethod
def ok(abc):
thebigone=abc
>>> A.ok('d')
>>> thebigone
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#12>", line 1, in <module>
thebigone
NameError: name 'thebigone' is not defined
>>> A.thebigone
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#13>", line 1, in <module>
A.thebigone
AttributeError: type object 'A' has no attribute 'thebigone'
After running the function, is it possible for the shell to return the contents of the variable, thebigone without altering the code? If not why is that?
Thanks

You can't create global variables spontaneously inside a method any more than you can create them spontaneously inside a function. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to have local variables in a static method without polluting the global namespace.
In addition to Pynchia's solution, you can declare a global variable outside the class, and reference it explicitly with global:
THEBIGONE = None
class a:
#staticmethod
def ok(abc):
global THEBIGONE
THEBIGONE = abc
Or you might want to use a classmethod to make it a member of the class:
class a:
#classmethod
def ok(cls, abc):
cls.THEBIGONE = abc
Class methods are generally more useful than static methods, so consider whether that might be a better solution to your real problem.

as it is assigned, THEBIGONE is a variable (name) in the local namespace of the method, not of the class.
Try with
a.THEBIGONE = ...
Generally speaking, in Python where the assignment takes places defines the namespace where the name ends up.
So the assignment THEBIGONE = ... makes it go in the current namespace, i.e. the method's.
Unless, you explicitly specify where the name should go, e.g.
an object (usually called self in instance methods) with self.THEBIGONE = ...
a class, with a.THEBIGONE = ... in your case. Note that, as suggested in trentcl's answer, you could make the method a classmethod and avoid using the class' name explicitly.
etc.
BTW: class names should start with capital letters, using the CapWords convention, leave lowercase to variables.
Please see the guidelines described in Python's PEP-8

Static method syntax confusion

This is how we make static functions in Python:
class A:
#staticmethod
def fun():
print 'hello'
A.fun()
This works as expected and prints hello.
If it is a member function instead of a static one, we use self:
class A:
def fun(self):
print 'hello'
A().fun()
which also works as expected and prints hello.
My confusion is with the following case:
class A:
def fun():
print 'hello'
In the above case, there is no staticmethod, nor self. Python interpreter is okay with this definition. However, we cannot call it either of the above methods, namely:
A.fun()
A().fun()
both gives errors.
My question is: Is there any way that I can call this function? If not, why Python do not give me a syntax error in the first place?

Python doesn't give you a syntax error, because the binding of a method (which takes care of passing in self) is a runtime action.
Only when you look up a method on a class or instance, is a method being bound (because functions are descriptors they produce a method when looked up this way). This is done via the descriptor.__get__() method, which is called by the object.__getattribute__() method, which Python called when you tried to access the fun attribute on the A class or A() instance.
You can always 'unwrap' the bound method and reach for the un-wrapped function underneath to call it directly:
A.fun.__func__()
Incidentally, that's exactly what staticmethod does; it is there to 'intercept' the descriptor binding and return the raw function object instead of a bound method. In other words, staticmethod undoes the normal runtime method binding:
Demo:
>>> class A(object): pass
...
>>> def fun(): print 'hello!'
...
>>> fun.__get__(None, A) # binding to a class
<unbound method A.fun>
>>> fun.__get__(None, A)() # calling a bound function, fails as there is no first argument
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unbound method fun() must be called with A instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
>>> fun.__get__(None, A).__func__ # access the wrapped function
<function fun at 0x100ba8378>
>>> staticmethod(fun).__get__(None, A) # staticmethod object just returns the function
<function fun at 0x100ba8378>
>>> staticmethod(fun).__get__(None, A)() # so calling it works
hello!

Class instantiation and 'self' in python

I know a ton has been written on this subject. I cannot, however, absorb much of it. Perhaps because I'm a complete novice teaching myself without the benefit of any training in computer science. Regardless, maybe if some of you big brains chime in on this specific example, you'll help other beginners like me.
So, I've written the following function which works just fine when I call it (as a module?) as it's own file called 'funky.py':
I type the following into my terminal:
python classy.py
and it runs fine.
def load_deck():
suite = ('Spades', 'Hearts')
rank = ('2', '3')
full_deck = {}
i = 0
for s in suite:
for r in rank:
full_deck[i] = "%s of %s" % (r, s)
i += 1
return full_deck
print load_deck()
When I put the same function in a class, however, I get an error.
Here's my code for 'classy.py':
class GAME():
def load_deck():
suite = ('Spades', 'Hearts')
rank = ('2', '3')
full_deck = {}
i = 0
for s in suite:
for r in rank:
full_deck[i] = "%s of %s" % (r, s)
i += 1
return full_deck
MyGame = GAME()
print MyGame.load_deck()
I get the following error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "classy.py", line 15, in <module>
print MyGame.load_deck()
TypeError: load_deck() takes no arguments (1 given)
So, I changed the definition line to the following and it works fine:
def load_deck(self):
What is it about putting a function in a class that demands the use of 'self'. I understand that 'self' is just a convention. So, why is any argument needed at all? Do functions behave differently when they are called from within a class?
Also, and this is almost more important, why does my class work without the benefit of using init ? What would using init do for my class?
Basically, if someone has the time to explain this to me like i'm a 6 year-old, it would help. Thanks in advance for any help.

Defining a function in a class definition invokes some magic that turns it into a method descriptor. When you access foo.method it will automatically create a bound method and pass the object instance as the first parameter. You can avoid this by using the #staticmethod decorator.
__init__ is simply a method called when your class is created to do optional setup. __new__ is what actually creates the object.
Here are some examples
>>> class Foo(object):
def bar(*args, **kwargs):
print args, kwargs
>>> foo = Foo()
>>> foo.bar
<bound method Foo.bar of <__main__.Foo object at 0x01C9FEB0>>
>>> Foo.bar
<unbound method Foo.bar>
>>> foo.bar()
(<__main__.Foo object at 0x01C9FEB0>,) {}
>>> Foo.bar()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#29>", line 1, in <module>
Foo.bar()
TypeError: unbound method bar() must be called with Foo instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
>>> Foo.bar(foo)
(<__main__.Foo object at 0x01C9FEB0>,) {}

So, why is any argument needed at all?
To access attributes on the current instance of the class.
Say you have a class with two methods, load_deck and shuffle. At the end of load_deck you want to shuffle the deck (by calling the shuffle method)
In Python you'd do something like this:
class Game(object):
def shuffle(self, deck):
return random.shuffle(deck)
def load_deck(self):
# ...
return self.shuffle(full_deck)
Compare this to the roughly-equivalent C++ code:
class Game {
shuffle(deck) {
return random.shuffle(deck);
}
load_deck() {
// ...
return shuffle(full_deck)
}
}
On shuffle(full_deck) line, first it looks for a local variable called shuffle - this doesn't exist, to next it checks one level higher, and finds an instance-method called shuffle (if this doesn't exist, it would check for a global variable with the right name)
This is okay, but it's not clear if shuffle refers to some local variable, or the instance method. To address this ambiguity, instance-methods or instance-attributes can also be accessed via this:
...
load_deck() {
// ...
return this->shuffle(full_deck)
}
this is almost identical to Python's self, except it's not passed as an argument.
Why is it useful to have self as an argument useful? The FAQ lists several good reasons - these can be summarised by a line in "The Zen of Python":
Explicit is better than implicit.
This is backed up by a post in The History of Python blog,
I decided to give up on the idea of implicit references to instance variables. Languages like C++ let you write this->foo to explicitly reference the instance variable foo (in case there’s a separate local variable foo). Thus, I decided to make such explicit references the only way to reference instance variables. In addition, I decided that rather than making the current object ("this") a special keyword, I would simply make "this" (or its equivalent) the first named argument to a method. Instance variables would just always be referenced as attributes of that argument.
With explicit references, there is no need to have a special syntax for method definitions nor do you have to worry about complicated semantics concerning variable lookup. Instead, one simply defines a function whose first argument corresponds to the instance, which by convention is named "self."

If you don't intent to use self you should probably declare the method to be a staticmethod.
class Game:
#staticmethod
def load_deck():
....
This undoes the automatic default packing that ordinarily happens to turn a function in a class scope into a method taking the instance as an argument.
Passing arguments you don't use is disconcerting to others trying to read your code.
Most classes have members. Yours doesn't, so all of its methods should be static. As your project develops, you will probably find data that should be accessible to all of the functions in it, and you will put those in self, and pass it around to all of them.
In this context, where the application itself is your primary object, __init__ is just the function that would initialize all of those shared values.
This is the first step toward an object-oriented style, wherein smaller pieces of data get used as objects themselves. But this is a normal stage in moving from straight scripting to OO programming.