Hello,
When reviewing the PyType_FromMetaclass function proposed in PR 93012,
it occurred to me that it would be good to add better support for
extending types with opaque structs.
Consider the tutorial example of extending list, adapted to PyType_Spec:
typedef struct {
PyListObject list;
int state;
} SubListObject;
static PyType_Spec Sublist_spec = {
.name = "sublist.SubList",
.basicsize = sizeof(SubListObject),
...
};If the PyListObject struct is not available (or opaque), as in the stable ABI, this approach won't work. The practical issue in PR 93012 is with metaclasses, which extend PyTypeObject or PyHeapTypeObject. Same idea but a bit “too meta” to be a good example. “Binding generator”-type projects that use the limited API resort to hacks in this area: see PySide or the experimental limited-API branch of nanobind.
I propose adding API that treats the subclass-specific data as a separate struct, and the “base” as an opaque blob (manipulated either by accessor functions or, if the struct is available, directly). Concretely:
- PyType_Spec.basicsize can be a negative (or zero) N to request -N bytes of *extra* storage on top of what the base class needs, so that the PyType_Spec can be static & read-only.
- a new
void* PyObject_GetTypeData(PyObject *obj, PyTypeObject *cls)returns the pointer to data specific tocls. - a new
Py_ssize_t PyObject_GetTypeataSize(PyTypeObject *cls)returns the size of that data (computed as cls->tp_basicsize - cls->tp_base->tp_basicsize). - itemsize would get similar treatment, but I'll leave details to the PEP
Intended usage:
typedef struct {
int state;
} SubListObject;
static PyType_Spec Sublist_spec = {
.name = "sublist.SubList",
.basicsize = -sizeof(SubListObject),
...
};
...
sublist_type = PyType_FromSpec(Sublist_spec);
...
SubListObject *data = PyObject_GetTypeData(instance, sublist_type);
data->state++;What do you think? Is it a PEP-worthy idea?