On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >>> 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. > > Excellent question!!! > > In fact, it is a very frustrating question. You can only define the > semantics of Python (in this case) by providing an *arbitrary* mapping > to an imaginary abstract machine. There's no way to define the objective > abstraction.
So aside from an artificial sense of purity, what's the point in defining object identity *at all*? Why invent an arbitrary number that you can't even see? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
