On 12/17/18, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Hang on, you're conflating two different things here.
You're probably right that I misinterpreted what the OP meant by
references winding up "on the stack". It's more common for a Python
developer to think of the call stack instead of the implementation
deta
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:12 AM eryk sun wrote:
> Objects are heap allocated and use reference counting in CPython (i.e.
> Python implemented in C). A scope reference in CPython could be a fast
> (function) local that's internal to a frame object; a cell object
> that's used to share variables in
On 12/17/18, Rob Gaddi wrote:
>
> Python's objects all have a lifespan dictated by the continued existence
> of references to them and thus can transcend the lifetime of the current
> function in ways not known at translation time. So am I right in
> thinking that all Python objects are out on th
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:36 AM Rob Gaddi
wrote:
>
> I've been writing Python for good long while now without thinking too
> hard about this, but I just had a realization this weekend.
>
> Back when the earth's crust was still cooling and we all rode dinosaurs
> to our jobs, local variables got al
I've been writing Python for good long while now without thinking too
hard about this, but I just had a realization this weekend.
Back when the earth's crust was still cooling and we all rode dinosaurs
to our jobs, local variables got allocated onto the stack, and dynamic
memory from malloc or
