We Keep Coding

Proper way to define function in a class that does not use self value

I am new to opp programming.I wanted to know what to do with a function that is inside the class but does not use self value
For example
class example:
def __init__(self,n):
self.number=n
def get_t(self,t):
return t*t
def main(self):
b=1
k=self.get_t(b)
From the example the function get_t has nothing to do with self value.
So I wanted to know where to place the function get_t or may be how to restructure the class.
Thank you for your consideration

What you're looking for are static methods. To declare a method static do it like this
#staticmethod
def foo():
pass

Nothing. Just let it be, Python won't complain about it and there's nothing fundamentally wrong about methods that doesn't use its instance. If your linter complains about it, you can shut up that warning. These kind of helper functions are often intended to be private methods that aren't intended to be used externally, you may want to prefix the name with underscore to indicate that.
Convert it into a free function. Python is an OOP language, but it's also a mixed paradigm language, unlike Java, for example, you can actually create a function outside of a class declaration. Pythonic code does not necessarily means putting everything into classes, and often a free function is perfectly suitable place for functions that doesn't involve a particular object instance.
def get_t(t):
return t*t
class example:
def main(self):
b=1
k=self.get_t(b)
If you want to be able to call it from the class by doing Example.get_t(blah) without having to have an instance, then you can either use the staticmethod or classmethod decorator. I suggest using classmethod which can do everything that staticmethod can do while the reverse isn't true and it's easier to make classmethod work correctly when you need to override it in a multi inheritance situation. staticmethod has a very tiny performance advantage, but you're microoptimizing if that's your concern.
class example:
#classmethod
def get_t(cls, t):
return t*t
def main(self):
b=1
k=self.get_t(b)
If get_t() is only being called from one method, you can put it as an inner function of that method:
class example:
def main(self):
def get_t(t):
return t * t
b=1
k=self.get_t(b)
With regards to naming, get_xxx is usually a code smell in python. The get_ prefix indicates that the method is likely a getter, and pythonic code usually don't use getters/setters, because the language supports property. What you have on here though, isn't actually a getter but rather a computation method, so it shouldn't be prefixed with get_. A better name might be calculate_t(t) or square(t).

Case 1: If self is there:-
class example:
def get_t(self,t):
return t*t
Then You can not access get_t function directly from class example like example.get_t(t=2) ,it will give you error. But you can access now by creating an object of class like q = example() and then q.get_t(t=2) , it will give you your desired result.
Case 2 : If self is not there:-
class example:
def get_t(t):
return t*t
Now You can directly access get_t function by class example like example.get_t(t=2) ,it will give you your desired result. But now you cannot use get_t function by creating object like q = example() then q.get_t(t=2) it will give you error.
Conclusion :- It all depends on your use case. But when you struck in this type of ambiguity use #staticmethod like given below:-
class example:
#staticmethod
def get_t(t):
return t*t
I hope it may help you.

How can I refer to the currently being defined class? [duplicate]

For a recursive function we can do:
def f(i):
if i<0: return
print i
f(i-1)
f(10)
However is there a way to do the following thing?
class A:
# do something
some_func(A)
# ...

If I understand your question correctly, you should be able to reference class A within class A by putting the type annotation in quotes. This is called forward reference.
class A:
# do something
def some_func(self, a: 'A')
# ...
See ref below
https://github.com/python/mypy/issues/3661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsrxBkV3kc

In Python you cannot reference the class in the class body, although in languages like Ruby you can do it.
In Python instead you can use a class decorator but that will be called once the class has initialized. Another way could be to use metaclass but it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

You can't with the specific syntax you're describing due to the time at which they are evaluated. The reason the example function given works is that the call to f(i-1) within the function body is because the name resolution of f is not performed until the function is actually called. At this point f exists within the scope of execution since the function has already been evaluated. In the case of the class example, the reference to the class name is looked up during while the class definition is still being evaluated. As such, it does not yet exist in the local scope.
Alternatively, the desired behavior can be accomplished using a metaclass like such:
class MetaA(type):
def __init__(cls):
some_func(cls)
class A(object):
__metaclass__=MetaA
# do something
# ...
Using this approach you can perform arbitrary operations on the class object at the time that the class is evaluated.

Maybe you could try calling __class__.
Right now I'm writing a code that calls a class method from within the same class.
It is working well so far.
I'm creating the class methods using something like:
#classmethod
def my_class_method(cls):
return None
And calling then by using:
x = __class__.my_class_method()

It seems most of the answers here are outdated. From python3.7:
from __future__ import annotations
Example:
$ cat rec.py
from __future__ import annotations
class MyList:
def __init__(self,e):
self.data = [e]
def add(self, e):
self.data.append(e)
return self
def score(self, other:MyList):
return len([e
for e in self.data
if e in other.data])
print(MyList(8).add(3).add(4).score(MyList(4).add(9).add(3)))
$ python3.7 rec.py
2

Nope. It works in a function because the function contents are executed at call-time. But the class contents are executed at define-time, at which point the class doesn't exist yet.
It's not normally a problem because you can hack further members into the class after defining it, so you can split up a class definition into multiple parts:
class A(object):
spam= 1
some_func(A)
A.eggs= 2
def _A_scramble(self):
self.spam=self.eggs= 0
A.scramble= _A_scramble
It is, however, pretty unusual to want to call a function on the class in the middle of its own definition. It's not clear what you're trying to do, but chances are you'd be better off with decorators (or the relatively new class decorators).

There isn't a way to do that within the class scope, not unless A was defined to be something else first (and then some_func(A) will do something entirely different from what you expect)
Unless you're doing some sort of stack inspection to add bits to the class, it seems odd why you'd want to do that. Why not just:
class A:
# do something
pass
some_func(A)
That is, run some_func on A after it's been made. Alternately, you could use a class decorator (syntax for it was added in 2.6) or metaclass if you wanted to modify class A somehow. Could you clarify your use case?

If you want to do just a little hacky thing do
class A(object):
...
some_func(A)
If you want to do something more sophisticated you can use a metaclass. A metaclass is responsible for manipulating the class object before it gets fully created. A template would be:
class AType(type):
def __new__(meta, name, bases, dct):
cls = super(AType, meta).__new__(meta, name, bases, dct)
some_func(cls)
return cls
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = AType
...
type is the default metaclass. Instances of metaclasses are classes so __new__ returns a modified instance of (in this case) A.
For more on metaclasses, see http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#customizing-class-creation.

If the goal is to call a function some_func with the class as an argument, one answer is to declare some_func as a class decorator. Note that the class decorator is called after the class is initialized. It will be passed the class that is being decorated as an argument.
def some_func(cls):
# Do something
print(f"The answer is {cls.x}")
return cls # Don't forget to return the class
#some_func
class A:
x = 1
If you want to pass additional arguments to some_func you have to return a function from the decorator:
def some_other_func(prefix, suffix):
def inner(cls):
print(f"{prefix} {cls.__name__} {suffix}")
return cls
return inner
#some_other_func("Hello", " and goodbye!")
class B:
x = 2
Class decorators can be composed, which results in them being called in the reverse order they are declared:
#some_func
#some_other_func("Hello", "and goodbye!")
class C:
x = 42
The result of which is:
# Hello C and goodbye!
# The answer is 42

What do you want to achieve? It's possible to access a class to tweak its definition using a metaclass, but it's not recommended.
Your code sample can be written simply as:
class A(object):
pass
some_func(A)

If you want to refer to the same object, just use 'self':
class A:
def some_func(self):
another_func(self)
If you want to create a new object of the same class, just do it:
class A:
def some_func(self):
foo = A()
If you want to have access to the metaclass class object (most likely not what you want), again, just do it:
class A:
def some_func(self):
another_func(A) # note that it reads A, not A()

Do remember that in Python, type hinting is just for auto-code completion therefore it helps IDE to infer types and warn user before runtime. In runtime, type hints almost never used(except in some cases) so you can do something like this:
from typing import Any, Optional, NewType
LinkListType = NewType("LinkList", object)
class LinkList:
value: Any
_next: LinkListType
def set_next(self, ll: LinkListType):
self._next = ll
if __name__ == '__main__':
r = LinkList()
r.value = 1
r.set_next(ll=LinkList())
print(r.value)
And as you can see IDE successfully infers it's type as LinkList:
Note: Since the next can be None, hinting this in the type would be better, I just didn't want to confuse OP.
class LinkList:
value: Any
next: Optional[LinkListType]

It's ok to reference the name of the class inside its body (like inside method definitions) if it's actually in scope... Which it will be if it's defined at top level. (In other cases probably not, due to Python scoping quirks!).
For on illustration of the scoping gotcha, try to instantiate Foo:
class Foo(object):
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self):
self.baz = Bar.baz
baz = 15
def __init__(self):
self.bar = Foo.Bar()
(It's going to complain about the global name 'Bar' not being defined.)
Also, something tells me you may want to look into class methods: docs on the classmethod function (to be used as a decorator), a relevant SO question. Edit: Ok, so this suggestion may not be appropriate at all... It's just that the first thing I thought about when reading your question was stuff like alternative constructors etc. If something simpler suits your needs, steer clear of #classmethod weirdness. :-)

Most code in the class will be inside method definitions, in which case you can simply use the name A.

Find class in which a method is defined

I want to figure out the type of the class in which a certain method is defined (in essence, the enclosing static scope of the method), from within the method itself, and without specifying it explicitly, e.g.
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
cls = enclosing_class() # <-- I need this.
print(cls)
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
obj = DerivedClass()
# I want this to print 'SomeClass'.
obj.do_it()
Is this possible?

If you need this in Python 3.x, please see my other answer—the closure cell __class__ is all you need.
If you need to do this in CPython 2.6-2.7, RickyA's answer is close, but it doesn't work, because it relies on the fact that this method is not overriding any other method of the same name. Try adding a Foo.do_it method in his answer, and it will print out Foo, not SomeClass
The way to solve that is to find the method whose code object is identical to the current frame's code object:
def do_it(self):
mro = inspect.getmro(self.__class__)
method_code = inspect.currentframe().f_code
method_name = method_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
try:
if getattr(base, method_name).func_code is method_code:
print(base.__name__)
break
except AttributeError:
pass
(Note that the AttributeError could be raised either by base not having something named do_it, or by base having something named do_it that isn't a function, and therefore doesn't have a func_code. But we don't care which; either way, base is not the match we're looking for.)
This may work in other Python 2.6+ implementations. Python does not require frame objects to exist, and if they don't, inspect.currentframe() will return None. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't require code objects to exist either, which means func_code could be None.
Meanwhile, if you want to use this in both 2.7+ and 3.0+, change that func_code to __code__, but that will break compatibility with earlier 2.x.
If you need CPython 2.5 or earlier, you can just replace the inpsect calls with the implementation-specific CPython attributes:
def do_it(self):
mro = self.__class__.mro()
method_code = sys._getframe().f_code
method_name = method_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
try:
if getattr(base, method_name).func_code is method_code:
print(base.__name__)
break
except AttributeError:
pass
Note that this use of mro() will not work on classic classes; if you really want to handle those (which you really shouldn't want to…), you'll have to write your own mro function that just walks the hierarchy old-school… or just copy it from the 2.6 inspect source.
This will only work in Python 2.x implementations that bend over backward to be CPython-compatible… but that includes at least PyPy. inspect should be more portable, but then if an implementation is going to define frame and code objects with the same attributes as CPython's so it can support all of inspect, there's not much good reason not to make them attributes and provide sys._getframe in the first place…

First, this is almost certainly a bad idea, and not the way you want to solve whatever you're trying to solve but refuse to tell us about…
That being said, there is a very easy way to do it, at least in Python 3.0+. (If you need 2.x, see my other answer.)
Notice that Python 3.x's super pretty much has to be able to do this somehow. How else could super() mean super(THISCLASS, self), where that THISCLASS is exactly what you're asking for?*
Now, there are lots of ways that super could be implemented… but PEP 3135 spells out a specification for how to implement it:
Every function will have a cell named __class__ that contains the class object that the function is defined in.
This isn't part of the Python reference docs, so some other Python 3.x implementation could do it a different way… but at least as of 3.2+, they still have to have __class__ on functions, because Creating the class object explicitly says:
This class object is the one that will be referenced by the zero-argument form of super(). __class__ is an implicit closure reference created by the compiler if any methods in a class body refer to either __class__ or super. This allows the zero argument form of super() to correctly identify the class being defined based on lexical scoping, while the class or instance that was used to make the current call is identified based on the first argument passed to the method.
(And, needless to say, this is exactly how at least CPython 3.0-3.5 and PyPy3 2.0-2.1 implement super anyway.)
In [1]: class C:
...: def f(self):
...: print(__class__)
In [2]: class D(C):
...: pass
In [3]: D().f()
<class '__main__.C'>
Of course this gets the actual class object, not the name of the class, which is apparently what you were after. But that's easy; you just need to decide whether you mean __class__.__name__ or __class__.__qualname__ (in this simple case they're identical) and print that.
* In fact, this was one of the arguments against it: that the only plausible way to do this without changing the language syntax was to add a new closure cell to every function, or to require some horrible frame hacks which may not even be doable in other implementations of Python. You can't just use compiler magic, because there's no way the compiler can tell that some arbitrary expression will evaluate to the super function at runtime…

If you can use #abarnert's method, do it.
Otherwise, you can use some hardcore introspection (for python2.7):
import inspect
from http://stackoverflow.com/a/22898743/2096752 import getMethodClass
def enclosing_class():
frame = inspect.currentframe().f_back
caller_self = frame.f_locals['self']
caller_method_name = frame.f_code.co_name
return getMethodClass(caller_self.__class__, caller_method_name)
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
print(enclosing_class())
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
DerivedClass().do_it() # prints 'SomeClass'
Obviously, this is likely to raise an error if:
called from a regular function / staticmethod / classmethod
the calling function has a different name for self (as aptly pointed out by #abarnert, this can be solved by using frame.f_code.co_varnames[0])

Sorry for writing yet another answer, but here's how to do what you actually want to do, rather than what you asked for:
this is about adding instrumentation to a code base to be able to generate reports of method invocation counts, for the purpose of checking certain approximate runtime invariants (e.g. "the number of times that method ClassA.x() is executed is approximately equal to the number of times that method ClassB.y() is executed in the course of a run of a complicated program).
The way to do that is to make your instrumentation function inject the information statically. After all, it has to know the class and method it's injecting code into.
I will have to instrument many classes by hand, and to prevent mistakes I want to avoid typing the class names everywhere. In essence, it's the same reason why typing super() is preferable to typing super(ClassX, self).
If your instrumentation function is "do it manually", the very first thing you want to turn it into an actual function instead of doing it manually. Since you obviously only need static injection, using a decorator, either on the class (if you want to instrument every method) or on each method (if you don't) would make this nice and readable. (Or, if you want to instrument every method of every class, you might want to define a metaclass and have your root classes use it, instead of decorating every class.)
For example, here's an easy way to instrument every method of a class:
import collections
import functools
import inspect
_calls = {}
def inject(cls):
cls._calls = collections.Counter()
_calls[cls.__name__] = cls._calls
for name, method in cls.__dict__.items():
if inspect.isfunction(method):
#functools.wraps(method)
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
cls._calls[name] += 1
return method(*args, **kwargs)
setattr(cls, name, wrapper)
return cls
#inject
class A(object):
def f(self):
print('A.f here')
#inject
class B(A):
def f(self):
print('B.f here')
#inject
class C(B):
pass
#inject
class D(C):
def f(self):
print('D.f here')
d = D()
d.f()
B.f(d)
print(_calls)
The output:
{'A': Counter(),
'C': Counter(),
'B': Counter({'f': 1}),
'D': Counter({'f': 1})}
Exactly what you wanted, right?

You can either do what #mgilson suggested or take another approach.
class SomeClass:
pass
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
This makes SomeClass the base class for DerivedClass.
When you normally try to get the __class__.name__ then it will refer to derived class rather than the parent.
When you call do_it(), it's really passing DerivedClass as self, which is why you are most likely getting DerivedClass being printed.
Instead, try this:
class SomeClass:
pass
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
def do_it(self):
for base in self.__class__.__bases__:
print base.__name__
obj = DerivedClass()
obj.do_it() # Prints SomeClass
Edit:
After reading your question a few more times I think I understand what you want.
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
cls = self.__class__.__bases__[0].__name__
print cls
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
obj = DerivedClass()
obj.do_it() # prints SomeClass

[Edited]
A somewhat more generic solution:
import inspect
class Foo:
pass
class SomeClass(Foo):
def do_it(self):
mro = inspect.getmro(self.__class__)
method_name = inspect.currentframe().f_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
if hasattr(base, method_name):
print(base.__name__)
break
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
class DerivedClass2(DerivedClass):
pass
DerivedClass().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
DerivedClass2().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
SomeClass().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
This fails when some other class in the stack has attribute "do_it", since this is the signal name for stop walking the mro.

Can I add custom methods/attributes to built-in Python types?

For example—say I want to add a helloWorld() method to Python's dict type. Can I do this?
JavaScript has a prototype object that behaves this way. Maybe it's bad design and I should subclass the dict object, but then it only works on the subclasses and I want it to work on any and all future dictionaries.
Here's how it would go down in JavaScript:
String.prototype.hello = function() {
alert("Hello, " + this + "!");
}
"Jed".hello() //alerts "Hello, Jed!"
Here's a useful link with more examples— http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/proto3.shtml

You can't directly add the method to the original type. However, you can subclass the type then substitute it in the built-in/global namespace, which achieves most of the effect desired. Unfortunately, objects created by literal syntax will continue to be of the vanilla type and won't have your new methods/attributes.
Here's what it looks like
# Built-in namespace
import __builtin__
# Extended subclass
class mystr(str):
def first_last(self):
if self:
return self[0] + self[-1]
else:
return ''
# Substitute the original str with the subclass on the built-in namespace
__builtin__.str = mystr
print str(1234).first_last()
print str(0).first_last()
print str('').first_last()
print '0'.first_last()
output = """
14
00
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "strp.py", line 16, in <module>
print '0'.first_last()
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'first_last'
"""

Just tried the forbbidenfruit!
here is the code, very simple!
from forbiddenfruit import curse
def list_size(self):
return len(self)
def string_hello(self):
print("Hello, {}".format(self))
if __name__ == "__main__":
curse(list, "size", list_size)
a = [1, 2, 3]
print(a.size())
curse(str, "hello", string_hello)
"Jesse".hello()

NOTE: this QA is marked as duplicate to this one, but IMO it asks for something different. I cannot answer there, so I am answering here.
Specifically, I wanted to inherit from str and add custom attributes. Existing answers (especially the ones saying you can't) didn't quite solve it, but this worked for me:
class TaggedString(str):
"""
A ``str`` with a ``.tags`` set and ``.kwtags`` dict of tags.
Usage example::
ts = TaggedString("hello world!", "greeting", "cliche",
what_am_i="h4cker")
(ts.upper(), ts.tags, ts.kwtags)
"""
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
return super().__new__(cls, args[0])
def __init__(self, s, *tags, **kwtags):
super().__init__()
self.tags = set(tags)
self.kwtags = kwtags
Hopefully this helps someone! Cheers,
Andres

Yes indeed, but you have to define a new class of the same type and it should inherit from that type.
For example:
class list(list):
def __init__(self, *args):
super().__init__(args)
def map(self, function):
return [function(i) for i in self]
a = list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
def double(i):
return i * 2
print(a.map(double))

Yes, by subclassing those types. See unifying types and classes in Python.
No, this doesn't mean that actual dicts will have this type, because that would be confusing. Subclassing a builtin type is the preferred way to add functionality.

class MyString:
def __init__(self, string):
self.string = string
def bigger_string(self):
print(' '.join(self.string))
mystring = MyString("this is the string")
mystring.bigger_string()
output
t h i s i s t h e s t r i n g
Dataclass in Python 3.7
from dataclasses import dataclass
#dataclass
class St:
text : str
def bigger(self) -> None:
self.text = list(self.text)
print(" ".join(self.text))
mys = St("Hello")
mys.bigger()
output
H e l l o

Yes, we can add custom methods and attributes to built-in python types. For example, let us say, you wanna define a new method inside the list class.
Let us think of defining a 'list' class and writing your own function like as follows :
class list:
def custom_method (self):
return("Hey, I'm a custom method of list class")
#lets create an object here
obj = list([1,2,3])
print(obj.custom_method())
#The above runs fine, but a list has append() method also right?? let's try it
print(obj.append(1))
"""Now you will get Attribute error : list object has no attribute append()"""
Because, when you define class having 'list' as class name, you will no longer be able to access the 'in-built list' class methods as 'list' is treated as a user-defined class rather than a inbuilt class.
So, in order to get rid of this error, you can inherit the properties/members of 'list' class and you can define own methods or attributes. So, in this way, you can call user-defined / in-built class methods using the same class name.
Here's how it looks :
#Extending in-built list class
class list(list):
def custom_method (self):
return("Hey, I'm a custom method of list class")
obj = list([1,2,3])
print(obj.custom_method())
obj.append(1)
print(obj)
It runs fine, and outputs modified list as [1,2,3,1].
NOTE : But when you do like this, it may create some ambiguity issues in long run like naming conflicts
For example, if you had a method having same signature that of an inbuilt function in user-defined class(say 'list' here), then it will be overridden without your knowledge or notice, thus you may not be able to use its original functionality in future. Considering the above code, if you ever define a method like append(self, value), the original functionality of append() will be lost.
So, it is better to use a different class name for your class name rather than same name as inbuilt class name
For example, you can declare a class like here as follows which does not raise any errors or you will not face any naming conflicts.
class custom_list(list):
def custom_method (self):
return("Hey, I'm a custom method of list class")
obj = custom_list([1,2,3])
print(obj.custom_method())
obj.append(1)
print(obj)

Subclassing is the way to go in Python. Polyglot programmers learn to use the right tool for the right situation - within reason. Something as artfully constructed as Rails (a DSL using Ruby) is painfully difficult to implement in a language with more rigid syntax like Python. People often compare the two saying how similar they are. The comparison is somewhat unfair. Python shines in its own ways. totochto.

Python: using Self and adding methods to an object on the fly

Here's my idea: Start with a simple object:
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
And to be able to add pre written methods to it on the fly:
def someMethod(self):
pass
So that I can do this:
someObject = dyncamicObject()
someObject._someMethod = someMethod
someObject._someMethod()
Problem is, it wants me to specify the self part of _someMethod() so that it looks like this:
someObject._someMethod(someObject)
This seems kind of odd since isn't self implied when a method is "attached" to an object?
I'm new to the Python way of thinking and am trying to get away from the same thought process for languages like C# so the idea here it to be able to create an object for validation by picking and choosing what validation methods I want to add to it rather than making some kind of object hierarchy. I figured that Python's "self" idea would work in my favor as I thought the object would implicitly know to send itself into the method attached to it.
One thing to note, the method is NOT attached to the object in any way (Completely different files) so maybe that is the issue? Maybe by defining the method on it's own, self is actually the method in question and therefore can't be implied as the object?

Although below I've tried to answer the literal question, I think
Muhammad Alkarouri's answer better addresses how the problem should actually be solved.
Add the method to the class, dynamicObject, rather than the object, someObject:
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
def someMethod(self):
print('Hi there!')
someObject=dynamicObject()
dynamicObject.someMethod=someMethod
someObject.someMethod()
# Hi there!
When you say someObject.someMethod=someMethod, then someObject.__dict__ gets the key-value pair ('someMethod',someMethod).
When you say dynamicObject.someMethod=someMethod, then someMethod is added to dynamicObject's __dict__. You need someMethod defined in the class for
someObject.someMethod to act like a method call. For more information about this, see Raymond Hettinger's essay on descriptors -- after all, a method is nothing more than a descriptor! -- and Shalabh Chaturvedi's essay on attribute lookup.
There is an alternative way:
import types
someObject.someMethod=types.MethodType(someMethod,someObject,type(someObject))
but this is really an abomination since you are defining 'someMethod' as a key in someObject.__dict__, which is not the right place for methods. In fact, you do not get a class method at all, just a curried function. This is more than a mere technicality. Subclasses of dynamicObject would fail to inherit the someMethod function.

To achieve what you want (create an object for validation by picking and choosing what validation methods I want to add to it), a better way is:
class DynamicObject(object):
def __init__(self, verify_method = None):
self.verifier = verify_method
def verify(self):
self.verifier(self)
def verify1(self):
print "verify1"
def verify2(self):
print "verify2"
obj1 = DynamicObject()
obj1.verifier = verify1
obj2 = DynamicObject(verify2)
#equivalent to
#obj2 = DynamicObject()
#obj2.verify = verify2
obj1.verify()
obj2.verify()

Why don't you use setattr? I found this way much more explicit.
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
def method():
print "Hi"
someObject = dynamicObject()
setattr(someObject,"method", method)
someObject.method()

Sometimes it is annoying to need to write a regular function and add it afterwards when the method is very simple. In that case, lambdas can come to the rescue:
class Square:
pass
Square.getX = lambda self: self.x
Square.getY = lambda self: self.y
Square.calculateArea = lambda self: self.getX() * self.getY()
Hope this helps.

If you just want to wrap another class, and not have to deal with assigning a new method to any instance, you can just make the method in question a staticmethod of the class:
class wrapperClass(object):
#staticmethod
def foo():
print("yay!")
obj = wrapperClass()
obj.foo() // Yay!
And you can then give any other class the .foo method with multiple inheritance.
class fooDict(dict, wrapperClass):
"""Normal dict with foo method"""
foo_dict = fooDict()
foo_dict.setdefault('A', 10)
print(foo_dict) // {'A': 10}
foo_dict.foo() // Yay!