Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The intention is that different interpreters have distinct, separate instances of the type objects. This is desirable in case of class variables, and standard for Python-defined types. Clearly, 3.0 won't provide that separation for many of the builtin types (and never may); for out-of-core types, it is really the choice of the module designer.
I forgot to implement PyType_Copy; it is meant to create a new type object which is a field-by-field copy. It's now too late to add it to 3.0; extension authors requiring it now should include it's source code (which is currently not even written - contributions are welcome). Reconsidering it: what should it do to the base types? a) just incref tp_base and clone tp_bases, b) offer an optional parameter to specify an alternative base object, c) offer an optional parameter to specify an alternative bases tuple. ---------- priority: high -> normal _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3760> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
