What's a correct and good way to implement __hash__()?

An easy, correct way to implement __hash__() is to use a key tuple. It won't be as fast as a specialized hash, but if you need that then you should probably implement the type in C.

Here's an example of using a key for hash and equality:

class A:
    def __key(self):
        return (self.attr_a, self.attr_b, self.attr_c)

    def __hash__(self):
        return hash(self.__key())

    def __eq__(self, other):
        if isinstance(other, A):
            return self.__key() == other.__key()
        return NotImplemented

Also, the documentation of __hash__ has more information, that may be valuable in some particular circumstances.

John Millikin proposed a solution similar to this:

class A(object):

    def __init__(self, a, b, c):
        self._a = a
        self._b = b
        self._c = c

    def __eq__(self, othr):
        return (isinstance(othr, type(self))
                and (self._a, self._b, self._c) ==
                    (othr._a, othr._b, othr._c))

    def __hash__(self):
        return hash((self._a, self._b, self._c))

The problem with this solution is that the hash(A(a, b, c)) == hash((a, b, c)). In other words, the hash collides with that of the tuple of its key members. Maybe this does not matter very often in practice?

Update: the Python docs now recommend to use a tuple as in the example above. Note that the documentation states

The only required property is that objects which compare equal have the same hash value

Note that the opposite is not true. Objects which do not compare equal may have the same hash value. Such a hash collision will not cause one object to replace another when used as a dict key or set element as long as the objects do not also compare equal.

Outdated/bad solution

The Python documentation on __hash__ suggests to combine the hashes of the sub-components using something like XOR, which gives us this:

class B(object):

    def __init__(self, a, b, c):
        self._a = a
        self._b = b
        self._c = c

    def __eq__(self, othr):
        if isinstance(othr, type(self)):
            return ((self._a, self._b, self._c) ==
                    (othr._a, othr._b, othr._c))
        return NotImplemented

    def __hash__(self):
        return (hash(self._a) ^ hash(self._b) ^ hash(self._c) ^
                hash((self._a, self._b, self._c)))

Update: as Blckknght points out, changing the order of a, b, and c could cause problems. I added an additional ^ hash((self._a, self._b, self._c)) to capture the order of the values being hashed. This final ^ hash(...) can be removed if the values being combined cannot be rearranged (for example, if they have different types and therefore the value of _a will never be assigned to _b or _c, etc.).

Paul Larson of Microsoft Research studied a wide variety of hash functions. He told me that

for c in some_string:
    hash = 101 * hash  +  ord(c)

worked surprisingly well for a wide variety of strings. I've found that similar polynomial techniques work well for computing a hash of disparate subfields.