http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/library/functions.rst File Doc/library/functions.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/library/functions.rst#new... Doc/library/functions.rst:855: The constructor does not accept any arguments. What about: `object` is a type used as base class for all other classes. When called, it accepts no arguments and returns a new unique and featureless object. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/library/functions.rst#new... Doc/library/functions.rst:861: the :class:`object` class. I think this note might be removed, and replaced with a sentence that says that object already defines some methods/attributes (but not others) and link to the list of methods. There it can be explained in more details what are the methods/attributes, and that __dict__ is not one of them. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/library/stdtypes.rst File Doc/library/stdtypes.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/library/stdtypes.rst#newc... Doc/library/stdtypes.rst:4326: instances of :class:`object`, the universal type. Most of these support I'm not sure I would use universal here. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/reference/datamodel.rst File Doc/reference/datamodel.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/reference/datamodel.rst#n... Doc/reference/datamodel.rst:131: whether built-in or not, are derived from it. Extension modules You already called it "ultimate", "universal", and now "fundamental". I don't like any of those terms. You can simply say: All types, built-in or not, are derived from :class:`object`. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Doc/reference/datamodel.rst#n... Doc/reference/datamodel.rst:1146: :meth:`__del__` method. Note that it is possible I wonder if it's better to split the actual object methods, with the ones that users must define themselves. The former can use :meth:`object.__*__` and describe the behavior of the default implementation, whereas the latter can use :meth:`cls.__*__`, describe what the method should do, and possibly link to the default implementation. This might also save you from repeating "object doesn't implement this method" several times. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Lib/test/test_class.py File Lib/test/test_class.py (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/diff/15301/Lib/test/test_class.py#newcod... Lib/test/test_class.py:541: self.assertFalse(hasattr(c, "__call__")) Maybe add a test for __dict__ too. http://bugs.python.org/review/16508/