Difference between type and class
Nikolaus Rath
Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
After reading http://www.cafepy.com/article/python_types_and_objects/
it seems to me that classes and types are actually the same thing:
- both are instances of a metaclass, and the same metaclass ('type')
can instantiate both classes and types.
- both can be instantiated and yield an "ordinary" object
- I can even inherit from a type and get a class
So why does Python distinguish between e.g. the type 'int' and the
class 'myclass'? Why can't I say that 'int' is a class and 'myclass'
is a type?
I hope I have managed to get across the point of my confusion...
Thanks in advance,
-Nikolaus
--
»It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that.«
-J.H. Hardy
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
oj
> So why does Python distinguish between e.g. the type 'int' and the
> class 'myclass'? Why can't I say that 'int' is a class and 'myclass'
> is a type?
I might be wrong here, but I think the point is that there is no
distinction. A class (lets call it SomeClass for this example) is an
object of type 'type', and an instance of a class is an object of type
'SomeClass'.
So int is a type, but if you have an int variable, its type is int.
Same for your classes.
This is, ignoring old style classes. Make sure all your classes
inherit from object to get new style classes.
Thomas Troeger
If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
`Specifying Object Interfaces'.
In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
common interface. The following example should clarify matters:
class A:
def bar(self):
print "A"
class B:
def bar(self):
print "B"
class C:
def bla(self):
print "C"
def foo(x):
x.bar()
you can call foo with instances of both A and B, because both classes
share a common type, namely the type that has a `bar' method), but not
with an instance of C because it has no method `bar'. Btw, this example
shows the use of duck typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing).
HTH,
Thomas.
Nikolaus Rath
That would imply that I cannot create instances of a type, only of
a class that implements the type, wouldn't it?
But Python denotes 'int' as a type *and* I can instantiate it.
Still confused,
Nikolaus Rath
> On Jul 31, 11:37 am, Nikolaus Rath <Nikol...@rath.org> wrote:
>> So why does Python distinguish between e.g. the type 'int' and the
>> class 'myclass'? Why can't I say that 'int' is a class and 'myclass'
>> is a type?
>
> I might be wrong here, but I think the point is that there is no
> distinction. A class (lets call it SomeClass for this example) is an
> object of type 'type', and an instance of a class is an object of type
> 'SomeClass'.
But there seems to be a distinction:
>>> class int_class(object):
... pass
...
>>> int_class
<class '__main__.int_class'>
>>> int
<type 'int'>
why doesn't this print
>>> class int_class(object):
... pass
...
>>> int_class
<type '__main__.int_class'>
>>> int
<type 'int'>
or
>>> class int_class(object):
... pass
...
>>> int_class
<class '__main__.int_class'>
>>> int
<class 'int'>
If there is no distinction, how does the Python interpreter know when
to print 'class' and when to print 'type'?
Best,
Maric Michaud
There are some confusion about the terms here.
Classes are instances of type 'type', but types are both instances and
subclasses of 'type'.
This recursivity is the base of the object model.
An instance of 'type' is a class (or a new type), but instances of a classes
are not. 'type' is a metatype in term of OO.
What the <type int> means is that int is not a user type but a builtin type,
instances of int are not types (or classes) but common objects, so its nature
is the same as any classes.
The way it prints doesn't matter, it's just the __repr__ of any instance, and
the default behavior for instances of type is to return '<class XX>', but it
can be easily customized.
>>>[1]: class A(object) :
...: class __metaclass__(type) :
...: def __repr__(self) : return "<type A>"
...:
...:
>>>[2]: A
...[2]: <type A>
>>>[3]: type('toto', (object,), {})
...[3]: <class '__main__.toto'>
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
Thomas Troeger
> a class that implements the type, wouldn't it?
>
> But Python denotes 'int' as a type *and* I can instantiate it.
Now I start getting confused also ;-)
>>> a=5
>>> a.__class__
<type 'int'>
>>> a.__class__.__class__
<type 'type'>
>>> dir(a)
['__abs__', '__add__', '__and__', '__class__', '__cmp__', '__coerce__',
'__delattr__', '__div__', '__divmod__', '__doc__', '__float__',
'__floordiv__', '__getattribute__', '__getnewargs__', '__hash__',
'__hex__', '__index__', '__init__', '__int__', '__invert__', '__long__',
'__lshift__', '__mod__', '__mul__', '__neg__', '__new__', '__nonzero__',
'__oct__', '__or__', '__pos__', '__pow__', '__radd__', '__rand__',
'__rdiv__', '__rdivmod__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__',
'__rfloordiv__', '__rlshift__', '__rmod__', '__rmul__', '__ror__',
'__rpow__', '__rrshift__', '__rshift__', '__rsub__', '__rtruediv__',
'__rxor__', '__setattr__', '__str__', '__sub__', '__truediv__', '__xor__']
I think in Python everything is implemented as a class which makes
sense. AFAIK you can implement a certain interface in a custom class and
it behaves like, for example, a builtin integer. But I guess one of the
gurus can clarify this matter with an appropriate URL ;-)
Maric Michaud
> De :
> Thomas Troeger <thomas.tr...@siemens.com> (Aioe.org NNTP Server)
> À :
> pytho...@python.org
> Date :
> Aujourd'hui 13:32:39
>
>
> > Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
>
> If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
> introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
> `Specifying Object Interfaces'.
>
> In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
> whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
> blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
> interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
> common interface. The following example should clarify matters:
>
Of course, this is what a type means in certain literature about OO
(java-ish), but this absolutely not what type means in Python. Types are a
family of object with a certain status, and they're type is "type",
conventionnaly named a metatype in standard OO.
There are three sort of objects in Python, in an inclusive order :
- ordinary object, or instance, they could not be instantiated or subclassed
(in general), and are all an instance of type "object" (or a subclass of it).
- types, or classes, are all instance of type 'type' (or a subclass of it),
they can be instantiated and they produce objects (ordinary object in
general) with theirslef as a type.
- metatypes or metaclass, are subclasses of "type", their instances are new
types.
For all tjis work together you must admit the following recursivity :
'type' is both a subclass and an instance of 'object' while 'object' is an
instance of 'type'.
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
Nikolaus Rath
>> > Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
>>
>> If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
>> introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
>> `Specifying Object Interfaces'.
>>
>> In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
>> whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
>> blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
>> interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
>> common interface. The following example should clarify matters:
>>
>
> Of course, this is what a type means in certain literature about OO
> (java-ish), but this absolutely not what type means in Python. Types
> are a family of object with a certain status, and they're type is
> "type", conventionnaly named a metatype in standard OO.
Hmm. Now you have said a lot about Python objects and their type, but
you still haven't said what a type actually is (in Python) and in what
way it is different from a class. Or did I miss something?
Best,
Nikolaus Rath
Could you please clarify what you mean with 'instance of type X'? I
guess you mean that 'y is an instance of type X' iif y is constructed
by instantiating X. Is that correct?
> What the <type int> means is that int is not a user type but a
> builtin type, instances of int are not types (or classes) but common
> objects, so its nature is the same as any classes.
>
> The way it prints doesn't matter, it's just the __repr__ of any instance, and
> the default behavior for instances of type is to return '<class XX>', but it
> can be easily customized.
But 'int' is an instance of 'type' (the metaclass):
>>> int.__class__
<type 'type'>
so it should also return '<class int>' if that's the default behavior
of the 'type' metaclass.
I think that to get '<type int>' one would have to define a new
metaclass like this:
def type_meta(type):
def __repr__(self)
return "<type %s>" % self.__name__
and then one should have int.__class__ == type_meta. But obviously
that's not the case. Why?
Moreover:
>>> class myint(int):
... pass
...
>>> myint.__class__ == int.__class__
True
>>> int
<type 'int'>
>>> myint
<class '__main__.myint'>
despite int and myint having the same metaclass. So if the
representation is really defined in the 'type' metaclass, then
type.__repr__ has to make some kind of distinction between int and
myint, so they cannot be on absolute equal footing.
Maric Michaud
> Maric Michaud <ma...@aristote.info> writes:
> >> > Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
> >>
> >> If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
> >> introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
> >> `Specifying Object Interfaces'.
> >>
> >> In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
> >> whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
> >> blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
> >> interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
> >> common interface. The following example should clarify matters:
> >
> > Of course, this is what a type means in certain literature about OO
> > (java-ish), but this absolutely not what type means in Python. Types
> > are a family of object with a certain status, and they're type is
> > "type", conventionnaly named a metatype in standard OO.
>
> [...]
>
> Hmm. Now you have said a lot about Python objects and their type, but
> you still haven't said what a type actually is (in Python) and in what
> way it is different from a class. Or did I miss something?
This paragraph ?
"""
- types, or classes, are all instance of type 'type' (or a subclass of it),
they can be instantiated and they produce objects (ordinary object in
general) with theirslef as a type.
"""
Maybe it's still unclear that "types" and "classes" *are* synonyms in Python.
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
Nikolaus Rath
> Le Thursday 31 July 2008 16:46:28 Nikolaus Rath, vous avez écrit :
>> Maric Michaud <ma...@aristote.info> writes:
>> >> > Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
>> >>
>> >> If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
>> >> introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
>> >> `Specifying Object Interfaces'.
>> >>
>> >> In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
>> >> whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
>> >> blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
>> >> interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
>> >> common interface. The following example should clarify matters:
>> >
>> > Of course, this is what a type means in certain literature about OO
>> > (java-ish), but this absolutely not what type means in Python. Types
>> > are a family of object with a certain status, and they're type is
>> > "type", conventionnaly named a metatype in standard OO.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Hmm. Now you have said a lot about Python objects and their type, but
>> you still haven't said what a type actually is (in Python) and in what
>> way it is different from a class. Or did I miss something?
>
> This paragraph ?
>
> """
> - types, or classes, are all instance of type 'type' (or a subclass of it),
Well, I couldn't quite make sense of '..are instance of type...'
without knowing what you actually meant with "type* in this context,
but...
> Maybe it's still unclear that "types" and "classes" *are* synonyms
> in Python.
..in this case it becomes clear. Then my question reduces to the one
in the other post (why do 'int' and 'myint' have different __repr__
results).
Already thanks for your help,
Maric Michaud
> > There are some confusion about the terms here.
> >
> > Classes are instances of type 'type',
>
> Could you please clarify what you mean with 'instance of type X'? I
> guess you mean that 'y is an instance of type X' iif y is constructed
> by instantiating X. Is that correct?
>
Correct, you can verify this with the isinstance builtin :
>>>[1]: isinstance(int(), int)
...[1]: True
>>>[2]: isinstance(int, object)
...[2]: True
>>>[3]: isinstance(int, type)
...[3]: True
>>>[4]: class A(object) : pass
...:
>>>[5]: isinstance(A, type)
...[5]: True
> > What the <type int> means is that int is not a user type but a
> > builtin type, instances of int are not types (or classes) but common
> > objects, so its nature is the same as any classes.
> >
> > The way it prints doesn't matter, it's just the __repr__ of any instance,
> > and the default behavior for instances of type is to return '<class XX>',
> > but it can be easily customized.
>
> But 'int' is an instance of 'type' (the metaclass):
> >>> int.__class__
>
> <type 'type'>
>
> so it should also return '<class int>' if that's the default behavior
> of the 'type' metaclass.
>
The fact that a class is an instance of type, which it is always true, doesn't
mean its metaclass is "type", it could be any subclass of type :
>>>[6]: class A(object) :
...: class __metaclass__(type) :
...: def __repr__(self) : return "<type A>"
...:
...:
>>>[7]: isinstance(A, type)
...[7]: True
>>>[8]: A.__class__
...[8]: <class '__main__.__metaclass__'>
>>>[9]: issubclass(A.__class__, type)
...[9]: True
> I think that to get '<type int>' one would have to define a new
> metaclass like this:
>
> def type_meta(type):
> def __repr__(self)
> return "<type %s>" % self.__name__
>
> and then one should have int.__class__ == type_meta. But obviously
> that's not the case. Why?
>
> Moreover:
> >>> class myint(int):
>
> ... pass
> ...
>
> >>> myint.__class__ == int.__class__
>
> True
>
*is* comparaison fits better here.
> >>> int
>
> <type 'int'>
>
> >>> myint
>
> <class '__main__.myint'>
>
> despite int and myint having the same metaclass. So if the
> representation is really defined in the 'type' metaclass, then
> type.__repr__ has to make some kind of distinction between int and
> myint, so they cannot be on absolute equal footing.
You're right, type(int) is type, the way it renders differently is a detail of
its implementation, you can do things with builtin types (written in C) you
coudn't do in pure python, exactly as you couldn't write recursive types
like 'object' and 'type'.
--
_____________
Maric Michaud
Nikolaus Rath
>>> What the <type int> means is that int is not a user type but a
>>> builtin type, instances of int are not types (or classes) but common
>>> objects, so its nature is the same as any classes.
>>>
>>> The way it prints doesn't matter, it's just the __repr__ of any instance,
>>> and the default behavior for instances of type is to return '<class XX>',
>>> but it can be easily customized.
>>
>> But 'int' is an instance of 'type' (the metaclass):
>> >>> int.__class__
>>
>> <type 'type'>
>>
>> so it should also return '<class int>' if that's the default behavior
>> of the 'type' metaclass.
>>
>
> The fact that a class is an instance of type, which it is always true, doesn't
> mean its metaclass is "type", it could be any subclass of type :
Yes, that is true. But it's not what I said above (and below).
'obj.__class__' gives the class of 'obj', so if 'int.__class__ is
type' then 'type' is the class of 'int' and 'int' is *not* an instance
of some metaclass derived from 'type'.
>> I think that to get '<type int>' one would have to define a new
>> metaclass like this:
>>
>> def type_meta(type):
>> def __repr__(self)
>> return "<type %s>" % self.__name__
>>
>> and then one should have int.__class__ is type_meta. But obviously
>> that's not the case. Why?
>>
>> Moreover:
>> >>> class myint(int):
>>
>> ... pass
>> ...
>>
>> >>> myint.__class__ is int.__class__
>> True
>>
>> >>> int
>> <type 'int'>
>>
>> >>> myint
>> <class '__main__.myint'>
>>
>> despite int and myint having the same metaclass. So if the
>> representation is really defined in the 'type' metaclass, then
>> type.__repr__ has to make some kind of distinction between int and
>> myint, so they cannot be on absolute equal footing.
>
> You're right, type(int) is type, the way it renders differently is a
> detail of its implementation, you can do things with builtin types
> (written in C) you coudn't do in pure python, exactly as you
> couldn't write recursive types like 'object' and 'type'.
If it is just a matter of different rendering, what's the reason for
doing it like that? Wouldn't it be more consistent and straightforward
to denote builtin types as classes as well?
And where exactly is this different rendering implemented? Could I
write my own type (in C, of course) and make it behave like e.g.
'int'? I.e. its rendering should be different and not inherited to
subclasses:
>>> my_type
<strange_thing 'my_type'>
>>> a = my_type(42)
>>> a.__class__
<strange_thing 'my_type'>
>>> class derived(my_type):
>>> pass
<class 'derived>
or would I have to change the implemention of 'type' for this (since
it contains the __repr__ function that renders the type)?
This is of course purely theoretical and probably without any
practical relevance. I'm if I just can't stop drilling, but I think
this is really interesting.
Steven D'Aprano
>> Can someone explain to me the difference between a type and a class?
>
> If your confusion is of a more general nature I suggest reading the
> introduction of `Design Patterns' (ISBN-10: 0201633612), under
> `Specifying Object Interfaces'.
>
> In short: A type denotes a certain interface, i.e. a set of signatures,
> whereas a class tells us how an object is implemented (like a
> blueprint). A class can have many types if it implements all their
> interfaces, and different classes can have the same type if they share a
> common interface.
I fear you're introducing a rather complicated answer for a simple
question. In Python, the simple answer is that built-in objects like int,
float, str etc. are referred to as "types", and custom objects created
using the class keyword are referred to as "classes". This is a
historical distinction that will disappear in time.
We can see that types and classes already have the same type in Python:
>>> class Parrot(object):
... pass
...
>>> type(Parrot)
<type 'type'>
>>> type(str)
<type 'type'>
> The following example should clarify matters:
>
> class A:
> def bar(self):
> print "A"
Alas, you've chosen the worst-possible example to "clarify" matters,
because old-style classic classes are *not* unified with types, and will
disappear in the future:
>>> class Old: # don't inherit from object
... pass
...
>>> type(Old)
<type 'classobj'>
So, to the Original Poster:
In Python, new-style classes and types are the same, but it is
traditional to refer to customer objects as "class" and built-in objects
as "types". Old-style classes are different, but you are discouraged from
using old-style classes unless you have a specific reason for needing
them (e.g. backwards compatibility).
--
Steven
Miles
> If it is just a matter of different rendering, what's the reason for
> doing it like that? Wouldn't it be more consistent and straightforward
> to denote builtin types as classes as well?
Yes, and in Python 3, it will be so:
>>> class myint(int): pass
...
>>> int
<class 'int'>
>>> myint
<class '__main__.myint'>
The reason the distinction is made currently is that before Python
2.2, "types" were built-in (or C extension) classes, and "classes"
were Python classes; it was not possible to subclass built-in types.
That "classic" style of classes are still supported in Python 2.2 and
above (but not in Python 3), by not inheriting from object or any
other built-in. However, for new-style classes, the only distinction
is in the repr.
>>> class classic: pass
...
>>> class newstyle(object): pass
...
>>> type(classic)
<type 'classobj'>
>>> type(classic())
<type 'instance'>
>>> classic.__class__
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: class classic has no attribute '__class__'
>>> classic().__class__
<class __main__.classic at 0x64e70>
>>>
>>> type(newstyle)
<type 'type'>
>>> type(newstyle())
<class '__main__.newstyle'>
Further reading:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.2.3/descrintro/
http://svn.python.org/view?rev=23331&view=rev
http://bugs.python.org/issue2565
-Miles
Nikolaus Rath
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> If it is just a matter of different rendering, what's the reason for
>> doing it like that? Wouldn't it be more consistent and straightforward
>> to denote builtin types as classes as well?
>
> Yes, and in Python 3, it will be so:
>
> http://svn.python.org/view?rev=23331&view=rev
That makes matters absolutely clear. Thanks a lot. No more questions
from my side ;-).
Nikolaus Rath
> So, to the Original Poster:
>
> In Python, new-style classes and types are the same, but it is
> traditional to refer to customer objects as "class" and built-in
> objects as "types". Old-style classes are different, but you are
> discouraged from using old-style classes unless you have a specific
> reason for needing them (e.g. backwards compatibility).
I see. Thanks a lot for the explanation.
Best,
Thomas Troeger
>> class A:
>> def bar(self):
>> print "A"
>
>
> Alas, you've chosen the worst-possible example to "clarify" matters,
> because old-style classic classes are *not* unified with types, and will
> disappear in the future:
Of course I wanted to write `class A(object)', but I keep forgetting
this one because I'm still used to the old ways...
Will this disappear in Python 3.0., i.e. can you again simply write
class A:
and inherit from object automagically? That would be nice since that's
what most people probably want.
Matthew Woodcraft
> Will this disappear in Python 3.0., i.e. can you again simply write
>
> class A:
>
> and inherit from object automagically?
Short answer: yes.
-M-
Terry Reedy
Thomas Troeger wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> class A:
>>> def bar(self):
>>> print "A"
>>
>>
>> Alas, you've chosen the worst-possible example to "clarify" matters,
>> because old-style classic classes are *not* unified with types, and
>> will disappear in the future:
>
> Of course I wanted to write `class A(object)', but I keep forgetting
> this one because I'm still used to the old ways...
>
> Will this disappear in Python 3.0., i.e. can you again simply write
> class A:
> and inherit from object automagically?
Yes.
IDLE 3.0b2
>>> class a: pass
>>> a
<class '__main__.a'>
>>> a.__bases__
(<class 'object'>,)
3.0 is really a nicer version. Once the final release is out, the main
reason to stick with 2.x for new code will be if it depends on
third-party code (including your own ;-) that has not been upgraded.
Gabriel Genellina
escribi�:
> oj <oje...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Jul 31, 11:37 am, Nikolaus Rath <Nikol...@rath.org> wrote:
>>> So why does Python distinguish between e.g. the type 'int' and the
>>> class 'myclass'? Why can't I say that 'int' is a class and 'myclass'
>>> is a type?
>>
>> I might be wrong here, but I think the point is that there is no
>> distinction. A class (lets call it SomeClass for this example) is an
>> object of type 'type', and an instance of a class is an object of type
>> 'SomeClass'.
>
> But there seems to be a distinction:
>
>>>> class int_class(object):
> ... pass
> ...
>>>> int_class
> <class '__main__.int_class'>
>>>> int
> <type 'int'>
> [...]
> If there is no distinction, how does the Python interpreter know when
> to print 'class' and when to print 'type'?
If it helps you to understand the issue, in Python 3.0 that difference is
gone - the word "class" is used on both cases. See
http://bugs.python.org/issue2565
--
Gabriel Genellina
Terry Reedy
A decade ago, in 1.x, 'types' were built-in classes. They were
instances of class 'type'. 'Classes' were user-defined classes. They
were instances of (built-in) class 'classob'. User classes had the same
status as instances of any other built-in class. They could only
inherit from other instances of 'UserClass'. Instances of user classes
were actually instances of built-in class 'instance'. They could not be
instances of the user class because user classes were, in a sense, not
really classes, just instances of 'classob' that emulated 'real' classes.
>>> class C(): pass
...
>>> c=C()
>>> type(C)
<type 'classobj'>
>>> type(c)
<type 'instance'>
Many users found the distinction between built-in classes and user
classes confusing and limiting. Users wanted to be able to use built-in
classes as base classes for user classes. So in 2.2 'object' was added
as the base-class for all built-in classes and user-classes with
'object' in the base-class tree became instances of type (or of some
other meta-class derived from type) instead of classob. But the
representation of new-style classes matched that of old-style classes
rather than that of the other instances of 'type' that happened to be
built in.
In 3.0, built-in classes 'classob' and 'instance' are gone, along with
the confusion of having two categories of user classes along with an
apparently separate category of built-in classes. User-classes are real
classes on a par with C-coded classes.
>>> class C(): pass # 3.0, in 2.x, class c(object)
>>> c=C()
>>> type(C)
<class 'type'> # same as
>> type(int)
<class 'type'>
>>> type(c)
<class '__main__.C'>
> If it helps you to understand the issue, in Python 3.0 that
> difference is gone - the word "class" is used on both cases. See
> http://bugs.python.org/issue2565
The only visible difference now (in 3.0) is that C-coded built-in
classes that are present as startup and which do not live in any
particular module do not have a module name as part of their
representation. Imported C-coded classes show no difference (and
indeed, in other implementations, they might be coded in Python or ??
rather than C).
>>> int
<class 'int'>
>>> c
<class '__main__.c'>
>>> import itertools as i
>>> i.product
<class 'itertools.product'>
I believe this should mean that if one write a module in Python and
later rewrites part of it in C for speed, with identical API, the change
of implementation will otherwise be transparent to user code and users,
as it ought to be.
Terry Jan Reedy