Simon Berube wrote: > On Apr 27, 3:52 pm, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:41 -0700, Simon Berube wrote: >> >>>Hi, >> >>> I have a rather simple question for which I couldn't find an >>>answer. I noticed how a significant number of objects in Python return >>>a __repr__() string along the lines of : >> >>>< Object at 0xXXXXXX> >> >>> I find this notation quite convenient to avoid out of control >>>strings when using large arrays but I was wondering how you can use >>>the memory address for assigning a new object. >> >>You can't. >> >> >>>In c, one could simple have a pointer to that memory address and >>>voila, you have a new object you can analyze however it seems like >>>python is allergic to direct memory manipulation. >> >>For good reason. Python is not C. >> >> >>>Hence, I was wondering what is the correct way to go about obtaining >>>objects returned in such a fashion? What am I going wrong or what am I >>>not getting? >> >>What is the actual problem you're trying to solve? >> >>-Carsten > > > First of all, thanks for your reply. I am not trying to solve a > problem in particular, I know that my way of thinking of very wrong in > a python sense and I am simply trying to find the equivalent accepted > practice. > > When you call certain objects __repr__() strings in python you often > get the : <Object at Memory Address> happen. I am simply trying to > understand how that information can be used to recreate a certain > object that failed as per the given purpose of the __repr__() > functions. > > In short, how do I used <Object at Memory Address> strings to recreate > a an object. > > I hope this is clearer. > >
I typed this before I realized it was essentially what everyone else has said. I'm posting it to make myself feel better than if I were to simply delete it. If you can call __repr__() on an object, then you already have a reference to it. If you have a reference to an object, then, in principle, you can create a copy of that object from the reference, rendering __repr__() unnecessary. It makes no senese to pass around a __repr__() of an object and attempt to create it from the __repr__(). This is because, in actuality, you would be passing around a reference to the returned value from __repr__() and so you might as well be passing a reference to the actual object. Obviously, you can not simply store the __repr__() output and hope to re-create the object later, say between invocations of the interpreter. You would either need the contents of the object stored or you would need to know those contents via a reference (in the same invocation). In short, you propose to do accounting that you should otherwise allow the interpreter to do for you. James -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
