Steven D'Aprano steve at pearwood.info
Fri Jan 18 05:51:09 EST 2019

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Thanks for the detailed answer. A further question below.


On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 07:50:51AM -0600, eryk sun wrote:
> On 1/17/19, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that the only way to pass the address of an object to
> > ctypes is to use that id. Is that intentional?
> 
> It's kind of dangerous to pass an object to C without an increment of
> its reference count.

"Kind of dangerous?" How dangerous?

If I am reading this correctly, I think you are saying that using id() 
in this way is never(?) correct.



-- 
Steve

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list