> So, the documentation states that ob_type is a pointer to the type's > type, or metatype. Rather, this is a pointer to the new type's > metaclass?
That's actually the same. *Every* ob_type field points to the object's type, e.g. for strings, integers, tuples, etc. That includes type objects, where ob_type points to the type's type, i.e. it's meta-type, also called metaclass (as "class" and "type" are really synonyms). > Next, we have tp_base. That's defined as "an optional pointer to a > base type from which type properties are inherited." The value of > tp_base is then added to the tp_bases tuple. This is confusing me. On > the surface, it sound as though they're one in the same? (I don't understand the English "one in the same" - interpreting it as "as though they should be the same") No: tp_bases is a tuple of all base types (remember, there is multiple inheritance); tp_base (if set) provides the first base type. > I *think* (and dir() of a subclass of type seems to back it up), that > tp_base is only at play when the object in question inherits from > type? No - it is the normal case for single inheritance. You can leave it NULL, which means you inherit from object. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
