On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:26:22 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >> When I talk about an object's memory address, I'm not referring to what >> might be revealed by gdb, for example. That is, I'm not talking about >> the process's virtual address space, nor am I talking about the >> physical address on the address bus. I can simply define that the >> object's memory address is whatever id() returns. > > Where's the complaints about circularity now? You're saying "But of > course id() returns the address, as long as we define the address as > 'whatever id() returns'.". Unimpeachably logical and utterly unhelpful.
That last sentence is wrong. There is nothing logical about just making up arbitrary definitions in this way. He could invent *any* definition, each more ridiculous than the last: - it's the object's memory address; - it's the object's phone number; - it's the number of baby elephants killed by the object; - it's the number of intergalactic empires that are, even as we speak, rushing to Earth to invade to gain possession of that object; - it's the weight in metric tonnes of the electrons in the object; (Not *actual* electrons of course, just these arbitrary inventions of Marko's definition.) - it's the length measured in seconds of the bitterness of the object's kidney; and of course: - the number of angels that can dance on the object. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
