cpython/Objects/classobject.c

651 lines
18 KiB
C
Raw 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 "internal/mem.h"
#include "internal/pystate.h"
1990-12-20 11:06:42 -04:00
#include "structmember.h"
#define TP_DESCR_GET(t) ((t)->tp_descr_get)
Merged revisions 60481,60485,60489-60492,60494-60496,60498-60499,60501-60503,60505-60506,60508-60509,60523-60524,60532,60543,60545,60547-60548,60552,60554,60556-60559,60561-60562,60568-60598,60600-60616 via svnmerge from svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/python/trunk ........ r60568 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-04 19:48:38 +0100 (Mon, 04 Feb 2008) | 1 line Increase debugging to investige failing tests on some build bots ........ r60570 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-04 20:30:05 +0100 (Mon, 04 Feb 2008) | 1 line Small adjustments for test compact freelist test. It's no passing on Windows as well. ........ r60573 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-04 21:53:14 +0100 (Mon, 04 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Correct quotes in NEWS file ........ r60575 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-04 22:45:05 +0100 (Mon, 04 Feb 2008) | 13 lines #1750076: Debugger did not step on every iteration of a while statement. The mapping between bytecode offsets and source lines (lnotab) did not contain an entry for the beginning of the loop. Now it does, and the lnotab can be a bit larger: in particular, several statements on the same line generate several entries. However, this does not bother the settrace function, which will trigger only one 'line' event. The lnotab seems to be exactly the same as with python2.4. ........ r60584 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-05 01:26:21 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 3 lines Change r60575 broke test_compile: there is no need to emit co_lnotab item when both offsets are zeros. ........ r60587 | skip.montanaro | 2008-02-05 03:32:16 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 1 line sync with most recent version from python-mode sf project ........ r60588 | lars.gustaebel | 2008-02-05 12:51:40 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 5 lines Issue #2004: Use mode 0700 for temporary directories and default permissions for missing directories. (will backport to 2.5) ........ r60590 | georg.brandl | 2008-02-05 13:01:24 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Convert external links to internal links. Fixes #2010. ........ r60592 | marc-andre.lemburg | 2008-02-05 15:50:40 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 3 lines Keep distutils Python 2.1 compatible (or even Python 2.4 in this case). ........ r60593 | andrew.kuchling | 2008-02-05 17:06:57 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 5 lines Update PEP URL. (This code is duplicated between pydoc and DocXMLRPCServer; maybe it should be refactored as a GHOP project.) 2.5.2 backport candidate. ........ r60596 | guido.van.rossum | 2008-02-05 18:32:15 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 2 lines In the experimental 'Scanner' feature, the group count was set wrong. ........ r60602 | facundo.batista | 2008-02-05 20:03:32 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 3 lines Issue 1951. Converts wave test cases to unittest. ........ r60603 | georg.brandl | 2008-02-05 20:07:10 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Actually run the test. ........ r60604 | skip.montanaro | 2008-02-05 20:24:30 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 2 lines correct object name ........ r60605 | georg.brandl | 2008-02-05 20:58:17 +0100 (Tue, 05 Feb 2008) | 7 lines * Use the same code to profile for test_profile and test_cprofile. * Convert both to unittest. * Use the same unit testing code. * Include the expected output in both test files. * Make it possible to regenerate the expected output by running the file as a script with an '-r' argument. ........ r60613 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-06 02:49:00 +0100 (Wed, 06 Feb 2008) | 1 line Sync-up with Py3k work. ........ r60614 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-06 13:44:34 +0100 (Wed, 06 Feb 2008) | 1 line Limit free list of method and builtin function objects to 256 entries each. ........ r60616 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-06 14:33:44 +0100 (Wed, 06 Feb 2008) | 7 lines Unified naming convention for free lists and their limits. All free lists in Object/ are named ``free_list``, the counter ``numfree`` and the upper limit is a macro ``PyName_MAXFREELIST`` inside an #ifndef block. The chances should make it easier to adjust Python for platforms with less memory, e.g. mobile phones. ........
2008-02-06 10:31:34 -04:00
/* Free list for method objects to safe malloc/free overhead
* The im_self element is used to chain the elements.
*/
static PyMethodObject *free_list;
static int numfree = 0;
#ifndef PyMethod_MAXFREELIST
#define PyMethod_MAXFREELIST 256
#endif
_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;
}
/* 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
{
PyMethodObject *im;
if (self == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
im = free_list;
if (im != NULL) {
free_list = (PyMethodObject *)(im->im_self);
(void)PyObject_INIT(im, &PyMethod_Type);
numfree--;
}
else {
im = PyObject_GC_New(PyMethodObject, &PyMethod_Type);
if (im == NULL)
return NULL;
}
im->im_weakreflist = NULL;
Py_INCREF(func);
im->im_func = func;
Py_XINCREF(self);
im->im_self = self;
_PyObject_GC_TRACK(im);
return (PyObject *)im;
1990-10-14 09:07:46 -03:00
}
static PyObject *
method_reduce(PyMethodObject *im)
{
PyObject *self = PyMethod_GET_SELF(im);
PyObject *func = PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(im);
PyObject *builtins;
PyObject *getattr;
PyObject *funcname;
_Py_IDENTIFIER(getattr);
funcname = _PyObject_GetAttrId(func, &PyId___name__);
if (funcname == NULL) {
return NULL;
}
builtins = PyEval_GetBuiltins();
getattr = _PyDict_GetItemId(builtins, &PyId_getattr);
return Py_BuildValue("O(ON)", 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|RESTRICTED,
"the function (or other callable) implementing a method"},
{"__self__", T_OBJECT, MO_OFF(im_self), READONLY|RESTRICTED,
"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 = obj->ob_type;
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(descr->ob_type);
if (f != NULL)
return f(descr, obj, (PyObject *)obj->ob_type);
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);
if (numfree < PyMethod_MAXFREELIST) {
im->im_self = (PyObject *)free_list;
free_list = im;
numfree++;
}
else {
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) {
if (a->im_self == NULL || b->im_self == NULL)
eq = a->im_self == b->im_self;
else
eq = PyObject_RichCompareBool(a->im_self, b->im_self,
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;
}
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 = NULL, *result = NULL;
const char *defname = "?";
funcname = _PyObject_GetAttrId(func, &PyId___qualname__);
if (funcname == NULL) {
if (!PyErr_ExceptionMatches(PyExc_AttributeError))
return NULL;
PyErr_Clear();
funcname = _PyObject_GetAttrId(func, &PyId___name__);
if (funcname == NULL) {
if (!PyErr_ExceptionMatches(PyExc_AttributeError))
return NULL;
PyErr_Clear();
}
}
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;
if (a->im_self == NULL)
x = PyObject_Hash(Py_None);
else
x = PyObject_Hash(a->im_self);
if (x == -1)
return -1;
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;
}
2001-08-02 01:15:00 -03:00
static PyObject *
method_call(PyObject *method, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwargs)
2001-08-02 01:15:00 -03:00
{
PyObject *self, *func;
self = PyMethod_GET_SELF(method);
if (self == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
func = PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(method);
return _PyObject_Call_Prepend(func, self, args, kwargs);
2001-08-02 01:15:00 -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_descr_get(PyObject *meth, PyObject *obj, PyObject *cls)
{
/* Don't rebind an already bound method of a class that's not a base
class of cls. */
if (PyMethod_GET_SELF(meth) != NULL) {
/* Already bound */
Py_INCREF(meth);
return meth;
}
/* Bind it to obj */
return PyMethod_New(PyMethod_GET_FUNCTION(meth), obj);
}
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 */
0, /* tp_print */
0, /* tp_getattr */
0, /* tp_setattr */
0, /* tp_reserved */
(reprfunc)method_repr, /* tp_repr */
0, /* tp_as_number */
0, /* tp_as_sequence */
0, /* tp_as_mapping */
(hashfunc)method_hash, /* tp_hash */
method_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, /* 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
};
/* Clear out the free list */
Merged revisions 60481,60485,60489-60492,60494-60496,60498-60499,60501-60503,60505-60506,60508-60509,60523-60524,60532,60543,60545,60547-60548,60552,60554,60556-60559,60561-60562,60569,60571-60572,60574,60576-60583,60585-60586,60589,60591,60594-60595,60597-60598,60600-60601,60606-60612,60615,60617,60619-60621,60623-60625,60627-60629,60631,60633,60635,60647,60650,60652,60654,60656,60658-60659,60664-60666,60668-60670,60672,60676,60678,60680-60683,60685-60686,60688,60690,60692-60694,60697-60700,60705-60706,60708,60711,60714,60720,60724-60730,60732,60736,60742,60744,60746,60748,60750-60751,60753,60756-60757,60759-60761,60763-60764,60766,60769-60770,60774-60784,60787-60845 via svnmerge from svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/python/trunk ........ r60790 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 10:32:45 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 4 lines Add diagnostic message to help figure-out why SocketServer tests occasionally crash when trying to remove a pid that in not in the activechildren list. ........ r60791 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 11:46:57 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Add fixed-point examples to the decimal FAQ ........ r60792 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 12:01:10 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Improve rst markup ........ r60794 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 12:57:25 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Show how to remove exponents. ........ r60795 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 13:05:42 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fix markup. ........ r60797 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-14 13:47:33 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Implemented Martin's suggestion to clear the free lists during the garbage collection of the highest generation. ........ r60798 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 13:49:37 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Simplify moneyfmt() recipe. ........ r60810 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 20:02:39 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fix markup ........ r60811 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 20:30:30 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line No need to register subclass of ABCs. ........ r60814 | thomas.heller | 2008-02-14 22:00:28 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Try to correct a markup error that does hide the following paragraph. ........ r60822 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-14 23:40:11 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Use a static and interned string for __subclasscheck__ and __instancecheck__ as suggested by Thomas Heller in #2115 ........ r60827 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-15 07:57:08 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fixed repr() and str() of complex numbers. Complex suffered from the same problem as floats but I forgot to test and fix them. ........ r60830 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-15 09:20:11 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Bug #2111: mmap segfaults when trying to write a block opened with PROT_READ Thanks to Thomas Herve for the fix. ........ r60835 | eric.smith | 2008-02-15 13:14:32 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line In PyNumber_ToBase, changed from an assert to returning an error when PyObject_Index() returns something other than an int or long. It should never be possible to trigger this, as PyObject_Index checks to make sure it returns an int or long. ........ r60837 | skip.montanaro | 2008-02-15 20:03:59 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 8 lines Two new functions: * place_summary_first copies the regrtest summary to the front of the file making it easier to scan quickly for problems. * count_failures gets the actual count of the number of failing tests, not just a 1 (some failures) or 0 (no failures). ........ r60840 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-15 22:21:25 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line Update example to match the current syntax. ........ r60841 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 22:22:45 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 8 lines Issue #2115: __slot__ attributes setting was 10x slower. Also correct a possible crash using ABCs. This change is exactly the same as an optimisation done 5 years ago, but on slot *access*: http://svn.python.org/view?view=rev&rev=28297 ........ r60842 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 22:27:44 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Temporarily let these tests pass ........ r60843 | kurt.kaiser | 2008-02-15 22:56:36 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines ScriptBinding event handlers weren't returning 'break'. Patch 2050, Tal Einat. ........ r60844 | kurt.kaiser | 2008-02-15 23:25:09 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 4 lines Configured selection highlighting colors were ignored; updating highlighting in the config dialog would cause non-Python files to be colored as if they were Python source; improve use of ColorDelagator. Patch 1334. Tal Einat. ........ r60845 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 23:44:20 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 9 lines Re-enable tests, they were failing since gc.collect() clears the various freelists. They still remain fragile. For example, a call to assertEqual currently does not make any allocation (which surprised me at first). But this can change when gc.collect also deletes the numerous "zombie frames" attached to each function. ........
2008-02-16 03:38:31 -04:00
int
PyMethod_ClearFreeList(void)
{
int freelist_size = numfree;
while (free_list) {
PyMethodObject *im = free_list;
free_list = (PyMethodObject *)(im->im_self);
PyObject_GC_Del(im);
numfree--;
}
assert(numfree == 0);
return freelist_size;
Merged revisions 60481,60485,60489-60492,60494-60496,60498-60499,60501-60503,60505-60506,60508-60509,60523-60524,60532,60543,60545,60547-60548,60552,60554,60556-60559,60561-60562,60569,60571-60572,60574,60576-60583,60585-60586,60589,60591,60594-60595,60597-60598,60600-60601,60606-60612,60615,60617,60619-60621,60623-60625,60627-60629,60631,60633,60635,60647,60650,60652,60654,60656,60658-60659,60664-60666,60668-60670,60672,60676,60678,60680-60683,60685-60686,60688,60690,60692-60694,60697-60700,60705-60706,60708,60711,60714,60720,60724-60730,60732,60736,60742,60744,60746,60748,60750-60751,60753,60756-60757,60759-60761,60763-60764,60766,60769-60770,60774-60784,60787-60845 via svnmerge from svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/python/trunk ........ r60790 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 10:32:45 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 4 lines Add diagnostic message to help figure-out why SocketServer tests occasionally crash when trying to remove a pid that in not in the activechildren list. ........ r60791 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 11:46:57 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Add fixed-point examples to the decimal FAQ ........ r60792 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 12:01:10 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Improve rst markup ........ r60794 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 12:57:25 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Show how to remove exponents. ........ r60795 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 13:05:42 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fix markup. ........ r60797 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-14 13:47:33 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Implemented Martin's suggestion to clear the free lists during the garbage collection of the highest generation. ........ r60798 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 13:49:37 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Simplify moneyfmt() recipe. ........ r60810 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 20:02:39 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fix markup ........ r60811 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-14 20:30:30 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line No need to register subclass of ABCs. ........ r60814 | thomas.heller | 2008-02-14 22:00:28 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Try to correct a markup error that does hide the following paragraph. ........ r60822 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-14 23:40:11 +0100 (Thu, 14 Feb 2008) | 1 line Use a static and interned string for __subclasscheck__ and __instancecheck__ as suggested by Thomas Heller in #2115 ........ r60827 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-15 07:57:08 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line Fixed repr() and str() of complex numbers. Complex suffered from the same problem as floats but I forgot to test and fix them. ........ r60830 | christian.heimes | 2008-02-15 09:20:11 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Bug #2111: mmap segfaults when trying to write a block opened with PROT_READ Thanks to Thomas Herve for the fix. ........ r60835 | eric.smith | 2008-02-15 13:14:32 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line In PyNumber_ToBase, changed from an assert to returning an error when PyObject_Index() returns something other than an int or long. It should never be possible to trigger this, as PyObject_Index checks to make sure it returns an int or long. ........ r60837 | skip.montanaro | 2008-02-15 20:03:59 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 8 lines Two new functions: * place_summary_first copies the regrtest summary to the front of the file making it easier to scan quickly for problems. * count_failures gets the actual count of the number of failing tests, not just a 1 (some failures) or 0 (no failures). ........ r60840 | raymond.hettinger | 2008-02-15 22:21:25 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 1 line Update example to match the current syntax. ........ r60841 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 22:22:45 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 8 lines Issue #2115: __slot__ attributes setting was 10x slower. Also correct a possible crash using ABCs. This change is exactly the same as an optimisation done 5 years ago, but on slot *access*: http://svn.python.org/view?view=rev&rev=28297 ........ r60842 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 22:27:44 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines Temporarily let these tests pass ........ r60843 | kurt.kaiser | 2008-02-15 22:56:36 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 2 lines ScriptBinding event handlers weren't returning 'break'. Patch 2050, Tal Einat. ........ r60844 | kurt.kaiser | 2008-02-15 23:25:09 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 4 lines Configured selection highlighting colors were ignored; updating highlighting in the config dialog would cause non-Python files to be colored as if they were Python source; improve use of ColorDelagator. Patch 1334. Tal Einat. ........ r60845 | amaury.forgeotdarc | 2008-02-15 23:44:20 +0100 (Fri, 15 Feb 2008) | 9 lines Re-enable tests, they were failing since gc.collect() clears the various freelists. They still remain fragile. For example, a call to assertEqual currently does not make any allocation (which surprised me at first). But this can change when gc.collect also deletes the numerous "zombie frames" attached to each function. ........
2008-02-16 03:38:31 -04:00
}
void
PyMethod_Fini(void)
{
(void)PyMethod_ClearFreeList();
}
/* Print summary info about the state of the optimized allocator */
void
_PyMethod_DebugMallocStats(FILE *out)
{
_PyDebugAllocatorStats(out,
"free PyMethodObject",
numfree, sizeof(PyMethodObject));
}
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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|RESTRICTED,
"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 = self->ob_type;
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(descr->ob_type);
if (f != NULL)
return f(descr, self, (PyObject *)self->ob_type);
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 = NULL , *result = NULL;
const char *defname = "?";
if (func == NULL) {
PyErr_BadInternalCall();
return NULL;
}
funcname = _PyObject_GetAttrId(func, &PyId___name__);
if (funcname == NULL) {
if (!PyErr_ExceptionMatches(PyExc_AttributeError))
return NULL;
PyErr_Clear();
}
else if (!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_print */
0, /* tp_getattr */
0, /* tp_setattr */
0, /* tp_reserved */
(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 */
};