On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Steve D'Aprano <steve+pyt...@pearwood.info>: > >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 07:10 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> >>> I believe identity can be defined much better, in numerous isomorphic >>> ways in fact. >>> >>> For example, we could equate each object with a sequence number >>> (unrelated with its id()). You can define that the "None" object is >>> in fact the natural number 0. The "False" object is in fact the >>> natural number 1 etc for all the primordial objects. During the >>> execution of the program, new objects are created, which simply >>> associates characteristics to ever higher natural numbers. >> >> Hmmm... interesting. You might just be on the right track here. That >> might even work for "identity" as required by Python. >> >> Of course you can't say "equate each object with its sequence number" >> since that implies that: >> >> assert None == 0 > > Python's integer object 0 might be equated with the (mathematical) > natural number 18974387634. Python code would have no way of > introspecting that natural number. > > The execution model would determine what properties object 18974387634 > would have.
Then what's the point of that number? If you can't see it from Python code, it's not part of the language semantics. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
