On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Stephane Wirtel wrote: > In this PR [https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/3382] "Remove reference > to > address from the docs, as it only causes confusion", opened by Chris > Angelico, there is a discussion about the right term to use for the > address of an object in memory. Why do we need to refer to the address of objects in memory? Python's execution model is not based on addresses. We can't get the address of an object or do anything with it (except via ctypes). At the Python layer, objects just exist, they don't logically exist at any addressable location. In fact, they might not exist in a single location -- compound objects are split across many locations or can share chunks of memory between multiple objects. Objects in Jython and IronPython can move about, those in PyPy can disappear from existence and reappear. The concept that every object has exactly one fixed location simply isn't correct. I understand that people wishing to understand the implementation details of CPython objects will need to think about C-level concepts like memory address, but at the Python level, "address" is not a very meaningful or useful concept. -- Steve
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4