tp_base, ob_type, and tp_bases

["Martin v. Löwis"]

> 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