On 25-09-17 20:01, Chris Angelico wrote: > 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.
I think you have me confused with Marko Rauhamaa. He makes an assertion about pointers. I don't. -- Antoon Pardon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
