[Python-Dev] Make PyType_GenericNew and object_new the same (original) (raw)

Jim Fulton jim at zope.com
Fri Jul 9 01:10:22 CEST 2004

At one time, object's tp_new slot was filled with PyType_GenericNew.

Later, someone decided to add a sanity check to object's new that raises an exception if arguments are passed and init was interited from object. (object's init takes no arguments.) At this point, objects's tp_new became different from PyType_GenericNew.

Now, I have some C types that are meant to be used as mix-in classes. I have to provide a tp_new slot filler if I want these classes (or their subclasses) to be callable. The canonical way to do this is to use PyType_GenericNew. This makes the type's tp_new different from object's, even though the intent is to have them be basically the same. If they are different, and you you can run into trouble if subclasses, mixed with other base classes try to override new. You get errors like:

TypeError: yourbaseclass.new(MetaInterface) is not safe, use object.new()

For reasons you don't want me to go into :) this results from the fact that the base class new and object.new are different.

IMO opinion, the error checks in object_new would be just as useful in PyType_GenericNew. I propose one of:

  1. Move the checks in object_new to PyType_GenericNew, get rid of object_new and fill object's tp_new slot with PyType_GenericNew, or

  2. Make the canonical way to fill the tp_new slot of a type that doesn't want to provide it's own new implementation and that does want to be callable to just copy object's tp_new slot:

    MyType.tp_new = PyBaseObject_Type.tp_new;

If no one objects, I'll implement 1. Otherwise, I'll implement 2 by updating the tutorial.

Jim

-- Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list