Repository navigation
__slots__ for subclasses of variable length types #41779
Description
Activity
This is a first, rough cut at allowing subclasses of variable length
types to have __slots__ of all flavours, not just __dict__.The motivation is trying to understand and document what's going on
in typeobject.c, and the less special cases knocking around the
better.This patch also allows instances of such classes to be weakly
referenced.What is missing: tests, lots of tests, documentation. Also, the code
is a bit hackish at various points; a degree of clean up can certainly
be acheived.Also, I think my code probably fails to cope with code like:
class A(str): pass # implicitly adds __dict__, __weakref__ class B(A): __slots__ = ["a", "b"] b = B() b.c = 1
Hmm, yes. Oh well, no time to fix today (I don't think it's that big a
deal).arigo commented
on Apr 3, 2005 arigomannequinMannequinLogged In: YES
user_id=4771I'm confused: the rule for negative slot offsets appear to be different to the one for tp_dictoffset, which only increases the amount of obscurity around here.
tp_dictoffset counts relative to the end of the object, whereas in your patch negative slot offsets are a different trick to mean "relative to the start but skipping the varsized part". The difference shows up when subclassing increases tp_basicsize. This should be resolved one way or the other -- and I think that a clear picture of the various parts of the object and how they are measured would be a good start.
That's also related to your proposed change to extra_ivars(), which would become slightly more permissive; I strongly suspect that it would allow more strange segfaulting cases to sneak in undetected...
Logged In: YES
user_id=6656I'm confused: the rule for negative slot offsets appear to be
different to the one for tp_dictoffsetYes. I think this is actually necessary.
Consider:
class S(str): __slots__ = ['a']
you'd except S.__dict__['a'].__offset__ (well, if the attribute existed) to be
-4.Then
class T(S): __slots__ = ['b']
then using the 'from the end of the object' rule for T().a would actually find
T.b. (IOW, T.__dict__['b'].__offset__ == T.__dict__['a'].__offset__ == -4).
The alternative would be to somehow override all the slots in S when T is
defined -- and this doesn't seem wise.__dict__ indeed works differently, because
instance.__class__.__dictoffset__ is updated on subclassing. You could
make __dict__ work like the slots mentioned above, but then you'd have to
find the '__dict__' descriptor every time you wanted to access an
instance's dictionary, and that would be slow (and might even not really
work, but I don't want to risk brain-explosion by thinking about it too hard)which only increases the amount of obscurity around here.
Yeah, sorry about that.
I think something I've realised over the past few days is that __dict__
really is special. I'm not sure __weakref__ is (though I guess it's special in
that you want to be able to access it from C without any risk of executing
Python level code, i.e. replacing Py_GETWEAKREFLIST(ob) with
PyOjbect_GetAttrString(ob, "__weakref__") would be unfortunate).This should be resolved one way or the other
See above -- don't think you can.
-- and I think that
a clear picture of the various parts of the object and how they
are measured would be a good start.No kidding here!
That's also related to your proposed change to extra_ivars(),
which would become slightly more permissive; I strongly suspect
that it would allow more strange segfaulting cases to sneak in
undetected...Almost certainly!
arigo commented
on Apr 3, 2005 arigomannequinMannequinLogged In: YES
user_id=4771I think it's still possible to give slot.offset the same meaning as tp_dictoffset, even given the additional constrain that it can't change upon subclassing. In your example classes S and T, we can put 'b' before 'a' in memory, so that a.offset==-4 (for both S and T) and b.offset==-8.
Logged In: YES
user_id=6656Heh, yes that works, and completely hadn't occurred to me.
devdanzin commented
on Feb 15, 2009 devdanzinmannequinMannequinPatch has tests.
BreamoreBoy commented
on Jul 16, 2010 BreamoreBoymannequinMannequinHow much rework if any is needed to get this patch into py3k?
I believe this is covered by the PEP-3003 3.2 change moratorium.
ISTM the space saving of value of __slots__ isn't typically needed in the context of variable length built-in types.
Guido has long regarded __slots__ as a confusing hack. That should warn us away for extending its functionality.
Unless there are some compelling use cases, a simple and clean patch, and a clear one sentence explanation for users, I recommend this feature request be closed.
Michael, do you still want this?
Well, I can think of some counters to that -- surely it's _more_ confusing if slots only works some of the time? -- but realistically I'm not going to work on this any further.
Declaring YAGNI and closing.
Thanks Michael.I do have a usecase for this: subclasses of int.
Having slots would be nice for a reasonably efficient implementation of named constants (as recently discussed on python-ideas), and I'm already using a subclass of int of PyObjC to attach a single other value to a Python integer. In both cases the overhead of the __dict__ is pretty large.
I have a use case for this for namedtuple subclasses, in particular to add fields to
urllib.parseclasses (#67041).- added 5 commits that reference this issue
on Nov 19, 2025 - added a commit that references this issue
on Jan 6, 2026
#1Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
Linked PRs