The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 15-04-13 12:11, Steven D'Aprano schreef:

>
> Python's data model has always been 100% object oriented. Prior to the
> "class/type" unification, it simply had *two distinct* implementations of
> objects: types, which were written in C, and classes, which were written
> in Python.
>
> After unification, the two kinds of object were no longer entirely
> distinct -- you could then subclass types in Python code, using the same
> "class" keyword as you would use for a pure-Python class.
>
> And starting with Python 3, the last vestiges of the distinction have
> disappeared. Now, "class" and "type" are mere synonyms. Both built-in
> types and custom classes use the same mechanism.

I had gotten my hopes up after reading this but then I tried:


$ python3
Python 3.2.3 (default, Feb 20 2013, 17:02:41)
[GCC 4.7.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
 >>> class vslice (slice):
...   pass
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: type 'slice' is not an acceptable base type


It seems types and classes are still not mere synonyms.