RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 18 10:29:44 EST 2019 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-January/156069.html

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 5:55 AM Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net wrote:

>
> > id() returning the address of the object should be a guaranteed feature
>
> For me, the definitive answer is "yes, it's a CPython feature".
> That doesn't mean the CPython feature has to live forever.  We may want
> to deprecate it at some point

Whenever I've taught Python (quite a bit between writing, in person, and
webinars), I have been very explicit in stating that id(obj) returns some
unique number for each object, and mentioned that for MANY Python objects
CPython users an implementation convenience of using the memory address.

Every time I've explained it I've said not to rely on that implementation
detail. It's not true for small integers, for example, even in CPython.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20190118/12b2cdf8/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-January/156069.html below:

[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?