[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
Chris Angelico
rosuav at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 18:02:21 EST 2019
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jan 18 18:02:21 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 Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 9:58 AM Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > I would be strongly in favour of ctypes gaining a "get address of > > object" function, which happens (in current CPythons) to return the > > same value as id() does, but is specifically tied to ctypes. > > Isn't this what the ctypes.py_object type is for? I didn't know about it when I posted that (as, I suspect, others also didn't), and as others have pointed out, this is a prime target for a docs update. Scanning the docs as of today does not suggest a better way to do things. ChrisA
- 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