TP wrote:
> If "di" is reliable, it seems a good solution for my initial constraint
> which is the impossibility to store anything but strings in my data
> structure.
'di' is dangerous and not reliable. When the original object is freed,
then the memory address may be used by another Python object
Correction: the UserString will be dead on the final line. When I
typed
it in I had a strong reference still hanging around.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> I don't know what is the best:
> * using an additional dict and maintaining it
It works, but as you say, is somewhat inelegant.
> * or using the "di" module proposed by CTO
Let me be clear: I am not proposing that you use it. It *does* do what
you
ask- but what you are asking is, all by itself
MRAB wrote:
> You could create a dict with the string as the key and the object as the
> value.
Thanks. But it implies an additional data structure: a dictionnary.
I don't know what is the best:
* using an additional dict and maintaining it
* or using the "di" module proposed by CTO
If "di" is r
> You could create a dict with the string as the key and the object as the
> value.
This will create a strong reference to the object, which is (I'm
assuming) undesired behavior.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
TP wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a data structure (a tree) that has one constraint: I can only store
strings in this data structure.
To know if an object foo already exists in memory, I store "str(id(foo))" in
the data structure.
OK.
But how do I get a usable reference from the id value?
For exa
TP wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a data structure (a tree) that has one constraint: I can only store
strings in this data structure.
To know if an object foo already exists in memory, I store "str(id(foo))" in
the data structure.
OK.
But how do I get a usable reference from the id value?
For exa
> But how do I get a usable reference from the id value?
> For example, if "foo" has a method "bar()", how can I call "foo.bar()"
> from "str(id(foo))" (say, 149466208).
can you just use a weakref instead? It is certainly cleaner than
trying to store id's,
since an id is only guaranteed to be uniq
