cpython/Objects/classobject.c

612 lines
18 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

/* Class object implementation (dead now except for methods) */
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
1997-05-02 00:12:38 -03:00
#include "Python.h"
#include "pycore_object.h"
#include "pycore_pyerrors.h"
#include "pycore_pystate.h" // _PyThreadState_GET()
#include "structmember.h" // PyMemberDef
#define TP_DESCR_GET(t) ((t)->tp_descr_get)
_Py_IDENTIFIER(__name__);
_Py_IDENTIFIER(__qualname__);
PyObject *
PyMethod_Function(PyObject *im)
{
if (!PyMethod_Check(im)) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
return ((PyMethodObject *)im)->im_func;
}
PyObject *
PyMethod_Self(PyObject *im)
{
if (!PyMethod_Check(im)) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
return ((PyMethodObject *)im)->im_self;
}
static PyObject *
method_vectorcall(PyObject *method, PyObject *const *args,
size_t nargsf, PyObject *kwnames)
{
assert(Py_IS_TYPE(method, &PyMethod_Type));
PyThreadState *tstate = _PyThreadState_GET();
PyObject *self = PyMethod_GET_SELF(method);
PyObject *func = PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(method);
Py_ssize_t nargs = PyVectorcall_NARGS(nargsf);
PyObject *result;
if (nargsf & PY_VECTORCALL_ARGUMENTS_OFFSET) {
/* PY_VECTORCALL_ARGUMENTS_OFFSET is set, so we are allowed to mutate the vector */
PyObject **newargs = (PyObject**)args - 1;
nargs += 1;
PyObject *tmp = newargs[0];
newargs[0] = self;
result = _PyObject_VectorcallTstate(tstate, func, newargs,
nargs, kwnames);
newargs[0] = tmp;
}
else {
Py_ssize_t nkwargs = (kwnames == NULL) ? 0 : PyTuple_GET_SIZE(kwnames);
Py_ssize_t totalargs = nargs + nkwargs;
if (totalargs == 0) {
return _PyObject_VectorcallTstate(tstate, func, &self, 1, NULL);
}
PyObject *newargs_stack[_PY_FASTCALL_SMALL_STACK];
PyObject **newargs;
if (totalargs <= (Py_ssize_t)Py_ARRAY_LENGTH(newargs_stack) - 1) {
newargs = newargs_stack;
}
else {
newargs = PyMem_Malloc((totalargs+1) * sizeof(PyObject *));
if (newargs == NULL) {
_PyErr_NoMemory(tstate);
return NULL;
}
}
/* use borrowed references */
newargs[0] = self;
/* bpo-37138: since totalargs > 0, it's impossible that args is NULL.
* We need this, since calling memcpy() with a NULL pointer is
* undefined behaviour. */
assert(args != NULL);
memcpy(newargs + 1, args, totalargs * sizeof(PyObject *));
result = _PyObject_VectorcallTstate(tstate, func,
newargs, nargs+1, kwnames);
if (newargs != newargs_stack) {
PyMem_Free(newargs);
}
}
return result;
}
/* Method objects are used for bound instance methods returned by
instancename.methodname. ClassName.methodname returns an ordinary
function.
*/
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
1997-05-02 00:12:38 -03:00
PyObject *
PyMethod_New(PyObject *func, PyObject *self)
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
{
if (self == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
PyMethodObject *im = PyObject_GC_New(PyMethodObject, &PyMethod_Type);
if (im == NULL) {
return NULL;
}
im->im_weakreflist = NULL;
Py_INCREF(func);
im->im_func = func;
Py_INCREF(self);
im->im_self = self;
im->vectorcall = method_vectorcall;
_PyObject_GC_TRACK(im);
return (PyObject *)im;
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
}
static PyObject *
method_reduce(PyMethodObject *im, PyObject *Py_UNUSED(ignored))
{
PyObject *self = PyMethod_GET_SELF(im);
PyObject *func = PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(im);
PyObject *funcname;
_Py_IDENTIFIER(getattr);
funcname = _PyObject_GetAttrId(func, &PyId___name__);
if (funcname == NULL) {
return NULL;
}
return Py_BuildValue("N(ON)", _PyEval_GetBuiltinId(&PyId_getattr),
self, funcname);
}
static PyMethodDef method_methods[] = {
{"__reduce__", (PyCFunction)method_reduce, METH_NOARGS, NULL},
{NULL, NULL}
};
/* Descriptors for PyMethod attributes */
/* im_func and im_self are stored in the PyMethod object */
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
#define MO_OFF(x) offsetof(PyMethodObject, x)
1990-12-20 11:06:42 -04:00
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
static PyMemberDef method_memberlist[] = {
{"__func__", T_OBJECT, MO_OFF(im_func), READONLY,
"the function (or other callable) implementing a method"},
{"__self__", T_OBJECT, MO_OFF(im_self), READONLY,
"the instance to which a method is bound"},
{NULL} /* Sentinel */
1990-12-20 11:06:42 -04:00
};
/* Christian Tismer argued convincingly that method attributes should
(nearly) always override function attributes.
The one exception is __doc__; there's a default __doc__ which
should only be used for the class, not for instances */
static PyObject *
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_get_doc(PyMethodObject *im, void *context)
{
static PyObject *docstr;
if (docstr == NULL) {
docstr= PyUnicode_InternFromString("__doc__");
if (docstr == NULL)
return NULL;
}
return PyObject_GetAttr(im->im_func, docstr);
}
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
static PyGetSetDef method_getset[] = {
{"__doc__", (getter)method_get_doc, NULL, NULL},
{0}
};
1997-05-02 00:12:38 -03:00
static PyObject *
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_getattro(PyObject *obj, PyObject *name)
1990-12-20 11:06:42 -04:00
{
PyMethodObject *im = (PyMethodObject *)obj;
PyTypeObject *tp = Py_TYPE(obj);
PyObject *descr = NULL;
{
if (tp->tp_dict == NULL) {
if (PyType_Ready(tp) < 0)
return NULL;
}
descr = _PyType_Lookup(tp, name);
}
if (descr != NULL) {
descrgetfunc f = TP_DESCR_GET(Py_TYPE(descr));
if (f != NULL)
return f(descr, obj, (PyObject *)Py_TYPE(obj));
else {
Py_INCREF(descr);
return descr;
}
}
return PyObject_GetAttr(im->im_func, name);
1990-12-20 11:06:42 -04:00
}
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
PyDoc_STRVAR(method_doc,
"method(function, instance)\n\
\n\
Create a bound instance method object.");
static PyObject *
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_new(PyTypeObject* type, PyObject* args, PyObject *kw)
{
PyObject *func;
PyObject *self;
if (!_PyArg_NoKeywords("method", kw))
return NULL;
if (!PyArg_UnpackTuple(args, "method", 2, 2,
&func, &self))
return NULL;
if (!PyCallable_Check(func)) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"first argument must be callable");
return NULL;
}
if (self == NULL || self == Py_None) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"self must not be None");
return NULL;
}
return PyMethod_New(func, self);
}
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
static void
method_dealloc(PyMethodObject *im)
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
{
_PyObject_GC_UNTRACK(im);
if (im->im_weakreflist != NULL)
PyObject_ClearWeakRefs((PyObject *)im);
Py_DECREF(im->im_func);
Py_XDECREF(im->im_self);
PyObject_GC_Del(im);
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
}
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
static PyObject *
method_richcompare(PyObject *self, PyObject *other, int op)
{
PyMethodObject *a, *b;
PyObject *res;
int eq;
if ((op != Py_EQ && op != Py_NE) ||
!PyMethod_Check(self) ||
!PyMethod_Check(other))
{
Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED;
}
a = (PyMethodObject *)self;
b = (PyMethodObject *)other;
eq = PyObject_RichCompareBool(a->im_func, b->im_func, Py_EQ);
if (eq == 1) {
eq = (a->im_self == b->im_self);
}
else if (eq < 0)
return NULL;
if (op == Py_EQ)
res = eq ? Py_True : Py_False;
else
res = eq ? Py_False : Py_True;
Py_INCREF(res);
return res;
}
1997-05-02 00:12:38 -03:00
static PyObject *
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_repr(PyMethodObject *a)
{
PyObject *self = a->im_self;
PyObject *func = a->im_func;
PyObject *funcname, *result;
const char *defname = "?";
if (_PyObject_LookupAttrId(func, &PyId___qualname__, &funcname) < 0 ||
(funcname == NULL &&
_PyObject_LookupAttrId(func, &PyId___name__, &funcname) < 0))
{
return NULL;
}
if (funcname != NULL && !PyUnicode_Check(funcname)) {
Py_DECREF(funcname);
funcname = NULL;
}
/* XXX Shouldn't use repr()/%R here! */
result = PyUnicode_FromFormat("<bound method %V of %R>",
funcname, defname, self);
Py_XDECREF(funcname);
return result;
}
static Py_hash_t
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_hash(PyMethodObject *a)
{
Py_hash_t x, y;
x = _Py_HashPointer(a->im_self);
y = PyObject_Hash(a->im_func);
if (y == -1)
return -1;
x = x ^ y;
if (x == -1)
x = -2;
return x;
}
static int
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_traverse(PyMethodObject *im, visitproc visit, void *arg)
{
Py_VISIT(im->im_func);
Py_VISIT(im->im_self);
return 0;
}
static PyObject *
Restructure comparison dramatically. There is no longer a default *ordering* between objects; there is only a default equality test (defined by an object being equal to itself only). Read the comment in object.c. The current implementation never uses a three-way comparison to compute a rich comparison, but it does use a rich comparison to compute a three-way comparison. I'm not quite done ripping out all the calls to PyObject_Compare/Cmp, or replacing tp_compare implementations with tp_richcompare implementations; but much of that has happened (to make most unit tests pass). The following tests still fail, because I need help deciding or understanding: test_codeop -- depends on comparing code objects test_datetime -- need Tim Peters' opinion test_marshal -- depends on comparing code objects test_mutants -- need help understanding it The problem with test_codeop and test_marshal is this: these tests compare two different code objects and expect them to be equal. Is that still a feature we'd like to support? I've temporarily removed the comparison and hash code from code objects, so they use the default (equality by pointer only) comparison. For the other two tests, run them to see for yourself. (There may be more failing test with "-u all".) A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is the reality that for object types that have a natural total ordering, implementing __cmp__ is much more convenient than implementing __eq__, __ne__, __lt__, and so on. Should we go back to allowing __cmp__ to provide a total ordering? Should we provide some other way to implement rich comparison with a single method override? Alex proposed a __key__() method; I've considered a __richcmp__() method. Or perhaps __cmp__() just shouldn't be killed off...
2006-08-23 21:41:19 -03:00
method_descr_get(PyObject *meth, PyObject *obj, PyObject *cls)
{
Py_INCREF(meth);
return meth;
}
1997-05-02 00:12:38 -03:00
PyTypeObject PyMethod_Type = {
PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyType_Type, 0)
"method",
sizeof(PyMethodObject),
0,
(destructor)method_dealloc, /* tp_dealloc */
offsetof(PyMethodObject, vectorcall), /* tp_vectorcall_offset */
0, /* tp_getattr */
0, /* tp_setattr */
0, /* tp_as_async */
(reprfunc)method_repr, /* tp_repr */
0, /* tp_as_number */
0, /* tp_as_sequence */
0, /* tp_as_mapping */
(hashfunc)method_hash, /* tp_hash */
PyVectorcall_Call, /* tp_call */
0, /* tp_str */
method_getattro, /* tp_getattro */
PyObject_GenericSetAttr, /* tp_setattro */
0, /* tp_as_buffer */
Py_TPFLAGS_DEFAULT | Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC |
Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_VECTORCALL, /* tp_flags */
method_doc, /* tp_doc */
(traverseproc)method_traverse, /* tp_traverse */
0, /* tp_clear */
method_richcompare, /* tp_richcompare */
offsetof(PyMethodObject, im_weakreflist), /* tp_weaklistoffset */
0, /* tp_iter */
0, /* tp_iternext */
method_methods, /* tp_methods */
method_memberlist, /* tp_members */
method_getset, /* tp_getset */
0, /* tp_base */
0, /* tp_dict */
method_descr_get, /* tp_descr_get */
0, /* tp_descr_set */
0, /* tp_dictoffset */
0, /* tp_init */
0, /* tp_alloc */
method_new, /* tp_new */
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
};
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
* instance method
*/
PyObject *
PyInstanceMethod_New(PyObject *func) {
PyInstanceMethodObject *method;
method = PyObject_GC_New(PyInstanceMethodObject,
&PyInstanceMethod_Type);
if (method == NULL) return NULL;
Py_INCREF(func);
method->func = func;
_PyObject_GC_TRACK(method);
return (PyObject *)method;
}
PyObject *
PyInstanceMethod_Function(PyObject *im)
{
if (!PyInstanceMethod_Check(im)) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
return PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(im);
}
#define IMO_OFF(x) offsetof(PyInstanceMethodObject, x)
static PyMemberDef instancemethod_memberlist[] = {
{"__func__", T_OBJECT, IMO_OFF(func), READONLY,
"the function (or other callable) implementing a method"},
{NULL} /* Sentinel */
};
static PyObject *
instancemethod_get_doc(PyObject *self, void *context)
{
static PyObject *docstr;
if (docstr == NULL) {
docstr = PyUnicode_InternFromString("__doc__");
if (docstr == NULL)
return NULL;
}
return PyObject_GetAttr(PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self), docstr);
}
static PyGetSetDef instancemethod_getset[] = {
{"__doc__", (getter)instancemethod_get_doc, NULL, NULL},
{0}
};
static PyObject *
instancemethod_getattro(PyObject *self, PyObject *name)
{
PyTypeObject *tp = Py_TYPE(self);
PyObject *descr = NULL;
if (tp->tp_dict == NULL) {
if (PyType_Ready(tp) < 0)
return NULL;
}
descr = _PyType_Lookup(tp, name);
if (descr != NULL) {
descrgetfunc f = TP_DESCR_GET(Py_TYPE(descr));
if (f != NULL)
return f(descr, self, (PyObject *)Py_TYPE(self));
else {
Py_INCREF(descr);
return descr;
}
}
return PyObject_GetAttr(PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self), name);
}
static void
instancemethod_dealloc(PyObject *self) {
_PyObject_GC_UNTRACK(self);
Py_DECREF(PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self));
PyObject_GC_Del(self);
}
static int
instancemethod_traverse(PyObject *self, visitproc visit, void *arg) {
Py_VISIT(PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self));
return 0;
}
static PyObject *
instancemethod_call(PyObject *self, PyObject *arg, PyObject *kw)
{
return PyObject_Call(PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self), arg, kw);
}
static PyObject *
instancemethod_descr_get(PyObject *descr, PyObject *obj, PyObject *type) {
PyObject *func = PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(descr);
if (obj == NULL) {
Py_INCREF(func);
return func;
}
else
return PyMethod_New(func, obj);
}
static PyObject *
instancemethod_richcompare(PyObject *self, PyObject *other, int op)
{
PyInstanceMethodObject *a, *b;
PyObject *res;
int eq;
if ((op != Py_EQ && op != Py_NE) ||
!PyInstanceMethod_Check(self) ||
!PyInstanceMethod_Check(other))
{
Py_RETURN_NOTIMPLEMENTED;
}
a = (PyInstanceMethodObject *)self;
b = (PyInstanceMethodObject *)other;
eq = PyObject_RichCompareBool(a->func, b->func, Py_EQ);
if (eq < 0)
return NULL;
if (op == Py_EQ)
res = eq ? Py_True : Py_False;
else
res = eq ? Py_False : Py_True;
Py_INCREF(res);
return res;
}
static PyObject *
instancemethod_repr(PyObject *self)
{
PyObject *func = PyInstanceMethod_Function(self);
PyObject *funcname, *result;
const char *defname = "?";
if (func == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
if (_PyObject_LookupAttrId(func, &PyId___name__, &funcname) < 0) {
return NULL;
}
if (funcname != NULL && !PyUnicode_Check(funcname)) {
Py_DECREF(funcname);
funcname = NULL;
}
result = PyUnicode_FromFormat("<instancemethod %V at %p>",
funcname, defname, self);
Py_XDECREF(funcname);
return result;
}
/*
static long
instancemethod_hash(PyObject *self)
{
long x, y;
x = (long)self;
y = PyObject_Hash(PyInstanceMethod_GET_FUNCTION(self));
if (y == -1)
return -1;
x = x ^ y;
if (x == -1)
x = -2;
return x;
}
*/
PyDoc_STRVAR(instancemethod_doc,
"instancemethod(function)\n\
\n\
Bind a function to a class.");
static PyObject *
instancemethod_new(PyTypeObject* type, PyObject* args, PyObject *kw)
{
PyObject *func;
if (!_PyArg_NoKeywords("instancemethod", kw))
return NULL;
if (!PyArg_UnpackTuple(args, "instancemethod", 1, 1, &func))
return NULL;
if (!PyCallable_Check(func)) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_TypeError,
"first argument must be callable");
return NULL;
}
return PyInstanceMethod_New(func);
}
PyTypeObject PyInstanceMethod_Type = {
PyVarObject_HEAD_INIT(&PyType_Type, 0)
"instancemethod", /* tp_name */
sizeof(PyInstanceMethodObject), /* tp_basicsize */
0, /* tp_itemsize */
instancemethod_dealloc, /* tp_dealloc */
0, /* tp_vectorcall_offset */
0, /* tp_getattr */
0, /* tp_setattr */
0, /* tp_as_async */
(reprfunc)instancemethod_repr, /* tp_repr */
0, /* tp_as_number */
0, /* tp_as_sequence */
0, /* tp_as_mapping */
0, /*(hashfunc)instancemethod_hash, tp_hash */
instancemethod_call, /* tp_call */
0, /* tp_str */
instancemethod_getattro, /* tp_getattro */
PyObject_GenericSetAttr, /* tp_setattro */
0, /* tp_as_buffer */
Py_TPFLAGS_DEFAULT
| Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC, /* tp_flags */
instancemethod_doc, /* tp_doc */
instancemethod_traverse, /* tp_traverse */
0, /* tp_clear */
instancemethod_richcompare, /* tp_richcompare */
0, /* tp_weaklistoffset */
0, /* tp_iter */
0, /* tp_iternext */
0, /* tp_methods */
instancemethod_memberlist, /* tp_members */
instancemethod_getset, /* tp_getset */
0, /* tp_base */
0, /* tp_dict */
instancemethod_descr_get, /* tp_descr_get */
0, /* tp_descr_set */
0, /* tp_dictoffset */
0, /* tp_init */
0, /* tp_alloc */
instancemethod_new, /* tp_new */
};