[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
Antoine Pitrou
solipsis at pitrou.net
Fri Jan 18 05:55:35 EST 2019
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jan 18 05:55:35 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 ]
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:18:17 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 22:11 Steve Dower <steve.dower at python.org wrote: > > > For everyone who managed to reply *hours* after Eryk Sun posted the > > correct answer and still get it wrong, here it is again in full. > > > > As a bonus, here's a link to the place where this answer appears in the > > documentation: > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/ctypes.html#ctypes.py_object > > > Eryk's answer is actually much more useful than the documentation. I've > read that documentation many times, but always decided not to use py_object > because I couldn't figure out what it would actually do... +1 Needless to say, this is an opportunity to improve the documentation ;-) Regards Antoine.
- 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