[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 05:54:21 EST 2019
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jan 18 05:54:21 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 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:18:13 -0800 Steve Dower <steve.dower at python.org> wrote: > I feel like I should clarify - not everyone who posted got it wrong, and > I understand there's a side discussion among those who are also > interested/participants in > https://discuss.python.org/t/demoting-the-is-operator-to-avoid-an-identity-crisis/86/ > - but there was no of acknowledgement of Eryk Sun's correct and useful > answer which I find very disappointing and a great way to discourage > contributions. > > We can, and should, do better, at least by thanking the person for their > response before running down a barely related side track. I can certainly thank Eryk for posting a much better answer than mine. 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