On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:50 am, BartC wrote:
> I said that Python's "=" does a very shallow copy. And I stated that in
> A=B, something of B must be copied into A.
>
> I (and probably others) would like to know why none of that is correct.
> But I suspect I'm not wrong.
Nothing of B is copied.
Here is a terrible ASCII art diagram of an object, floating in memory (most
likely in the heap), an instant before the garbage collector can reach it
and collect it:
+----------------------+
| DEADBEEF0012345... |
+----------------------+
(Best viewed in a monospaced font, like Courier.)
The contents of the object are shown as a hex-dump, and will depend on the
actual object and its value, but in general you would expect a field which
acts as some sort of tag or pointer linking the instance to its parent
class, plus other fields specifying the object's value and/or attributes.
The internal details of the object don't matter, but basically objects are
structs or records.
Here is an ASCII art diagram of that same object, now bound to the name "B",
preventing the GC from collecting it:
+----------------------+
B------------->| DEADBEEF0012345... |
+----------------------+
The name "B" may be on the heap, or in an array. It is possible that the
human-readable string "B" itself no longer appears in memory. I don't care
about the specific implementation, but for the record, in the case of
CPython the name "B" is itself a string object in the heap, linked to from
a specific associative array (hash table) also in the heap. (I think.)
The link between the name B and the object ---> could be anything that
allows the compiler/interpreter to associate one to the other. We call it
a "reference". In CPython, references are pointers. If somebody were to
write Python using FORTRAN 77, they would most likely use a big array to
hold the objects, and use the index into the array as references. Other
implementations may use other things, but for simplicity, let's just stick
with calling it a pointer.
Now let's do the assignment A = B:
+----------------------+
B------------->| DEADBEEF0012345... |
+->+----------------------+
|
A-----------+
This adds a new reference (think: pointer) to the object, linked to the
name "A". But **nothing of the object** is copied. The pointers to the
object are not part of the object -- they are external to the object.
If you want to talk about anything being copied, you should talk about
*copying the reference* to B, not copying B.
[Aside: there is some ambiguity here. If I say "a reference to B", I
actually mean a reference to the object referenced to by B. I don't mean a
reference to the *name* B. Python doesn't support that feature: names are
not values in Python.]
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
