Misc questions about type objects and Python 3.0

[Michael Hudson]

Standard caveat: I don't think there are many fixed plans for "Python
3.0".  I might well prove to be totally wrong with this post.

Carl Banks <imbosol at vt.edu> writes:

> 1. Is it the plan that Python 3.0 be binary compatible with Python
>    2.x?

Depends what you mean.  It's unlikely to be perfectly compatible.
None of 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 from current CVS are totally binary
compatible.  But I don't think wild changes are expected.  "Most"
extension modules will keep working, probably with a warning.

> 2. If it isn't (I'm guessing it will be), is it the plan to keep
>    reference counting?  

I'd be amazed if it went.

>    It seems to me that getting rid of reference counting might be
>    the first step to getting rid of the GIL.

It seems very unlikely the GIL is going away (at least, that's want
Guido said at EuroPython).

> 3. The docs say types choose their member resolution order (?), but
>    I'm wondering if that's just a temporary hack to support both
>    old-style and new-style classes.  

Don't think so.

>    After old-style classes are dropped, will MRO be fixed for all
>    types?  

If I had to guess, no.

>    (And is it really that useful for it to be customizable?)

Dunno.

> 4. What is the point of having both tp_base and tp_bases in the type
>    structure?

I have no idea.  Probably historical reasons of one sort or another.

> 5. What's the deal with unification of numeric types?  What's expected
>    or planned or hoped for in 3.0?

I think there are PEPs you can read about this -- 237, 238 and 239,
maybe?  In that range, numerically speaking, anyway.

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  You owe The Oracle a TV with an 'intelligence' control - I've 
  tried 'brightness' but that didn't work.
                                      -- Internet Oracularity #1192-01