On Jan 17, 8:12 am, Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net wrote:
On Jan 17, 11:09 am, Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:50 am, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
type, or metatype. Rather, this is a
On Jan 18, 5:40 am, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:12 am, Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net wrote:
On Jan 17, 11:09 am, Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:50 am, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So, the documentation states that ob_type
.
Anyways, I've been going through PyType_Ready as it sets up copies of
PyObjectType, and I'm a bit confused by tp_base, ob_type, and
tp_bases. I've been using http://docs.python.org/c-api/index.html as
a guideline.
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
type
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
type, or metatype. Rather, this is a pointer to the new type's
metaclass?
That's actually the same. *Every* ob_type field points to the object's
type, e.g. for strings, integers, tuples, etc. That includes type
objects, where
On Jan 17, 10:50 am, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
type, or metatype. Rather, this is a pointer to the new type's
metaclass?
That's actually the same. *Every* ob_type field points to the object's
type, e.g.
On Jan 17, 11:09 am, Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net wrote:
On Jan 17, 10:50 am, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
type, or metatype. Rather, this is a pointer to the new type's
metaclass?
That's actually the
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's
Next, we have tp_base. That's defined as an optional pointer to a
base type from which type properties are inherited. The value of
tp_base is then added to the tp_bases tuple. This is confusing me.
In article gktk5g$av...@ger.gmane.org, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu
wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
(I don't understand the English one in the same - interpreting it
as as though they should be the same)
Martin, you are not alone! I do not really understand that either.
It's a non-standard
Jeff McNeil j...@jmcneil.net writes:
Thank you! It was tp_base that was confusing me. The tp_bases member
makes sense as Python supports multiple inheritance. It wasn't
immediately clear that tp_base is there for single inheritance
reasons. It's all quite clear now.
Is that an
