[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
Greg Ewing
greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Fri Jan 18 18:02:53 EST 2019
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jan 18 18:02:53 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 ]
MRAB wrote: If I want to cache some objects, I put them in a dict, using the id as > the key. If I wanted to locate an object in a cache and didn't have > id(), I'd have to do a linear search for it. That sounds dangerous. An id() is only valid as long as the object it came from still exists, after which it can get re-used for a different object. So when an object is flushed from your cache, you would have to chase down all the places its id is being stored and eliminate them. Are you sure you couldn't achieve the same thing more safely using weak references? -- Greg
- 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