On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > 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.
My bad. It sounded like you were agreeing with Marko, and arguing the same assertion. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list