On Sun, Sep 13, 2015, at 19:17, Akira Li wrote: > "do not physically exist" does not make sense. Objects are *never* > destroyed explicitly in Python (you can only make them > *unreachable*).
But the objects we've talking about have never been created, because the __getitem__ method has not been called, because we're talking about the structure of what _is there_, not the idea of what will happen after you call some method. The (range, or whatever) object holds no reference/pointer/whatever (maybe we should just call them arrows?) to the objects that it will create when you call __getitem__, or even to the ones that it has created when you've called it, so it doesn't make sense to put a box in it that will have an arrow pointing to those objects. > You can disable garbage collection completely and it is > still will be Python. Immutable objects can be considered immortal e.g.: > > (1+1) -- question: does the object that represents int(2) exist before > the expression is evaluated? > > The correct answer: it does not matter: int(2) can be created on the > fly, a cached int(2) can be reused by a specific implementation -- > Python doesn't care. > > I don't see why the model that can't describe range(1) in Python 3 > pretends to be complete. Why can't it describe range(1)? A range object in my model would include the start, stop, and step; _not_ the contents of what you would get by iterating over it; since that's not part of the physical structure of the object, but the consequences of calling methods on it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
