complex_coerce() would never be called with a complex argument,
because PyNumber_Coerce[Ex] doesn't bother calling the type's coercion
method if the values already have the same type. But now, of course,
it's possible to pass an instance of a complex *subtype*, and those
must be accepted.
hack, and it's even more disgusting than a PyInstance_Check() call.
If the tp_compare slot is the slot used for overrides in Python,
it's always called.
Add some tests that show what should work too.
only safely call a type's tp_compare slot if the second argument is
also an instance of the same type. I hate to think what
e.g. int_compare() would do with a second argument that's a float!
descriptors for each attribute. The getattr() implementation is
similar to PyObject_GenericGetAttr(), but delegates to im_self instead
of looking in __dict__; I couldn't do this as a wrapper around
PyObject_GenericGetAttr().
XXX A problem here is that this is a case of *delegation*. dir()
doesn't see exactly the same attributes that are actually defined;
e.g. if the delegate is a Python function object, it supports
attributes like func_code etc., but these are not visible to dir(); on
the other hand, dynamic function attributes (stored in the function's
__dict__) *are* visible to dir(). Maybe we need a mechanism to tell
dir() about the delegation mechanism? I vaguely recall seeing a
request in the newsgroup for a more formal definition of attribute
delegation too. Sigh, time for a new PEP.
and are lists, and then just the string elements (if any)).
There are good and bad reasons for this. The good reason is to support
dir() "like before" on objects of extension types that haven't migrated
to the class introspection API yet. The bad reason is that Python's own
method objects are such a type, and this is the quickest way to get their
im_self etc attrs to "show up" via dir(). It looks much messier to move
them to the new scheme, as their current getattr implementation presents
a view of their attrs that's a untion of their own attrs plus their
im_func's attrs. In particular, methodobject.__dict__ actually returns
methodobject.im_func.__dict__, and if that's important to preserve it
doesn't seem to fit the class introspection model at all.
Both int and long multiplication are changed to be more careful in
their assumptions about when one of the arguments is a sequence: the
assumption that at least one of the arguments must be an int (or long,
respectively) is still held, but the assumption that these don't smell
like sequences is no longer true: a subtype of int or long may well
have a sequence-repeat thingie!
NotImplemented when the lookup fails, and use this for binary
operators. Also lookup_maybe() which doesn't raise an exception when
the lookup fails (still returning NULL).
- Don't turn a non-tuple argument into a one-tuple. Rather, the
caller must pass a format that causes Py_VaBuildValue() to return a
tuple.
- Speed things up by calling PyObject_Call (which is fairly low-level
and straightforward) rather than PyObject_CallObject (which calls
PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords which calls PyObject_Call, and nothing
is really done in the mean time except some tests for NULL args and
valid types, which are already guaranteed).
- Cosmetics.
Other places:
- Make sure that the format argument to call_method() is surrounded by
parentheses, so it will cause a tuple to be created.
- Replace a few calls to PyEval_CallObject() with a surefire tuple for
args to calls to PyObject_Call(). (A few calls to
PyEval_CallObject() remain that have NULL for args.)
directly, as the only thing done here (replace NULL args with an empty
tuple) is also done there.
XXX Maybe we should take one step further and equate the two at the
macro level? That's harder though because PyEval_Call* is declared in
a header that's not included standard. But it is silly that
PyObject_CallObject calls PyEval_CallObject which calls back to
PyObject_Call. Maybe PyEval_CallObject should be moved into this file
instead? All I know is that there are too many call APIs! The
differences between PyObject_Call and PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords is
that the latter allows args to be NULL, and does explicit type checks
for args and kwds.
A surprising number of changes to split tp_new into tp_new and tp_init.
Turned out the older PyFile_FromFile() didn't initialize the memory it
allocated in all (error) cases, which caused new sanity asserts
elsewhere to fail left & right (and could have, e.g., caused file_dealloc
to try decrefing random addresses).
keys are true strings -- no subclasses need apply. This may be debatable.
The problem is that a str subclass may very well want to override __eq__
and/or __hash__ (see the new example of case-insensitive strings in
test_descr), but go-fast shortcuts for strings are ubiquitous in our dicts
(and subclass overrides aren't even looked for then). Another go-fast
reason for the change is that PyCheck_StringExact() is a quicker test
than PyCheck_String(), and we make such a test on virtually every access
to every dict.
OTOH, a str subclass may also be perfectly happy using the base str eq
and hash, and this change slows them a lot. But those cases are still
hypothetical, while Python's own reliance on true-string dicts is not.
just by doing type(f) where f is any file object. This left a hole in
restricted execution mode that rexec.py can't plug by itself (although it
can plug part of it; the rest is plugged in fileobject.c now).
on to the tp_new slot (if non-NULL), as well as to the tp_init slot (if
any). A sane type implementing both tp_new and tp_init should probably
pay attention to the arguments in only one of them.
with the same value instead. This ensures that a string (or string
subclass) object's ob_sinterned pointer is always a str (or NULL), and
that the dict of interned strings only has strs as keys.
+ These were leaving the hash fields at 0, which all string and unicode
routines believe is a legitimate hash code. As a result, hash() applied
to str and unicode subclass instances always returned 0, which in turn
confused dict operations, etc.
+ Changed local names "new"; no point to antagonizing C++ compilers.
subclasses, all "the usual" ones (slicing etc), plus replace, translate,
ljust, rjust, center and strip. I don't know how to be sure they've all
been caught.
Question: Should we complain if someone tries to intern an instance of
a string subclass? I hate to slow any code on those paths.
tuple(i) repaired to return a true tuple when i is an instance of a
tuple subclass.
Added PyTuple_CheckExact macro.
PySequence_Tuple(): if a tuple-like object isn't exactly a tuple, it's
not safe to return the object as-is -- make a new tuple of it instead.
Given an immutable type M, and an instance I of a subclass of M, the
constructor call M(I) was just returning I as-is; but it should return a
new instance of M. This fixes it for M in {int, long}. Strings, floats
and tuples remain to be done.
Added new macros PyInt_CheckExact and PyLong_CheckExact, to more easily
distinguish between "is" and "is a" (i.e., only an int passes
PyInt_CheckExact, while any sublass of int passes PyInt_Check).
Added private API function _PyLong_Copy.
Subtlety on Windows: if we change test_largefile.py to use a file
> 4GB, it still fails. A debug session suggests this is because
fseek(fp, 0, 2) refuses to seek to the end of the file when the file
is > 4GB, because it uses the SetFilePointer() in 32-bit mode.
But it only fails when we seek relative to the end of the file,
because in the other seek modes only calls to fgetpos() and fsetpos()
are made, which use Get/SetFilePointer() in 64-bit mode. Solution:
#ifdef MS_WInDOWS, replace the call to fseek(fp, ...) with a call to
_lseeki64(fileno(fp), ...). Make sure to call fflush(fp) first.
(XXX Could also replace the entire branch with a call to _lseeki64().
Would that be more efficient? Certainly less generated code.)
(XXX This needs more testing. I can't actually test that it works for
files >4GB on my Win98 machine, because the filesystem here won't let
me create files >=4GB at all. Tim should test this on his Win2K
machine.)
- use PyModule_Check() instead of PyObject_TypeCheck(), now we can.
- don't assert that the __dict__ gotten out of a module is always
a dictionary; check its type, and raise an exception if it's not.
iterable object. I'm not sure how that got overlooked before!
Got rid of the internal _PySequence_IterContains, introduced a new
internal _PySequence_IterSearch, and rewrote all the iteration-based
"count of", "index of", and "is the object in it or not?" routines to
just call the new function. I suppose it's slower this way, but the
code duplication was getting depressing.
the base classes is not a classic class, and its class (the metaclass)
is callable, call the metaclass to do the deed.
One effect of this is that, when mixing classic and new-style classes
amongst the bases of a class, it doesn't matter whether the first base
class is a classic class or not: you will always get the error
"TypeError: metatype conflict among bases". (Formerly, with a classic
class first, you'd get "TypeError: PyClass_New: base must be a class".)
Another effect is that multiple inheritance from ExtensionClass.Base,
with a classic class as the first class, transfers control to the
ExtensionClass.Base class. This is what we need for SF #443239 (and
also for running Zope under 2.2a4, before ExtensionClass is replaced).
corresponding "getitem" operation (sq_item or mp_subscript) is
implemented. I realize that "sequence-ness" and "mapping-ness" are
poorly defined (and the tests may still be wrong for user-defined
instances, which always have both slots filled), but I believe that a
sequence that doesn't support its getitem operation should not be
considered a sequence. All other operations are optional though.
For example, the ZODB BTree tests crashed because PySequence_Check()
returned true for a dictionary! (In 2.2, the dictionary type has a
tp_as_sequence pointer, but the only field filled is sq_contains, so
you can write "if key in dict".) With this fix, all standalone ZODB
tests succeed.
a->tp_mro. If a doesn't have class, it's considered a subclass only
of itself or of 'object'.
This one fix is enough to prevent the ExtensionClass test suite from
dumping core, but that doesn't say much (it's a rather small test
suite). Also note that for ExtensionClass-defined types, a different
subclass test may be needed. But I haven't checked whether
PyType_IsSubtype() is actually used in situations where this matters
-- probably it doesn't, since we also don't check for classic classes.
