On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > On 25-09-17 19:31, Chris Angelico wrote: >> If by "identity" you mean the integer values returned by id(), then >> nope, you're still wrong - there is no mapping from identities to >> values. There is a mapping from name to object/value, and from an >> object, you can determine its identity. If you like, there's a mapping >> from values to identities, but not the other way around. > > I'm describing this at a conceptual level.
At what conceptual level are the identities an in-between state instead of being something you see from the object? >> Unless, of course, you can find something in the Python documentation >> that supports this two-step indirection? > > The fact that the Python documentation describes its sematics differently > doesn't contradict that this is a useful model. You need *some* support for your assertion that there are pointers, and you have absolutely none. Sure, that's not contradicting anything, but it's like a scientist trying to prove that there's a link between laser pointers and cancer, and just never finding any backing for that theory. Nothing has yet DISproven that link, but how long do you search fruitlessly before you accept that maybe your theory is flat wrong? And it's hard to convince someone else of your theory if it has no support. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
