On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:49:38 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote: > Rustom Mody writes:
> > Then you are obliged to provide some other way of understanding > > object-identity > How about: Every object has an identity, which is unique among all > concurrently-existing objects. The 'is' operator queries whether two > references are referring to objects with the same identity, which > implies they are actually referring to the same object. > Is that sufficient? Are you explaining or defining identity? As an explanation its ok though a bit tautologous As a definition its circular [Just for context remember the OP -- a noob father-son duo confused by python's memory model] > > I earlier talked of the macro problems of identity, viz across > > machines. > Python doesn't make any promises about object identity beyond the > current run-time of a single instance of a program. So while the problem > you describe is interesting, it isn't relevant when talking about Python > object identity. Hard as a nail the problem persists -- Non-promise of identity implies we understand it!! > -- > \ "When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies | > `\ and astound your friends." --Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ | > _o__) | > Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
