[Python-bugs-list] [ python-Bugs-672115 ] Assignment to __bases__ of direct object subclasses

[SourceForge.net]

Bugs item #672115, was opened at 2003-01-21 22:45
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=672115&group_id=5470

Category: Python Interpreter Core
Group: Python 2.3
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Greg Chapman (glchapman)
>Assigned to: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Summary: Assignment to __bases__ of direct object subclasses

Initial Comment:
I'm not entirely sure this is a bug, but I think it is 
surprising:

Python 2.3a1 (#38, Dec 31 2002, 17:53:59) [MSC 
v.1200 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more 
information.
>>> class A(object):
...     pass
...
>>> class B(object):
...     pass
...
>>> B.__bases__ = (A,)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: __bases__ assignment: 'A' deallocator differs 
from 'object'

It seems like you should be able to change the 
__bases__ of a new-style class (implemented in 
Python) which inherits directly from object to another 
new-style class.  (Will the deallocator issue ever come 
into play if the only types involved are HEAPTYPES and 
object as the ultimate base?)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2003-01-22 11:50

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

I agree this is a bit surprising.  When I was writing this
code I went for the conservative-as-possible approach as I
didn't want to introduce instabilities to Python.

It certainly may be that I've overdone it.  In this case I
probably have; if the tp_dealloc of the class being adjusted
is subtype_dealloc and the tp_dealloc that ultimately gets
invoked is the same we're probably OK.  But I'm not sure and
it's been a while since I thought about this.

It also happens that my motivating use-case for this isn't
troubled by this restriction.

I don't understand your last, parenthetical, comment. 
HEAPTYPES as such doesn't come into it, does it?  

You might be right that we don't need to worry about
tp_dealloc if the ultimate solid_base doesn't change and all
the tp_deallocs on the way there are subtype_dealloc...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=672115&group_id=5470