Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: You will get the same problem for common idiom of using a singleton for optional parameters without default value. _singleton = object() def get(key, default=_signleton): if default is _signleton: ... And for other objects whos repr contains "at 0x...". And even more complex problem with sets. When test the pydoc output, ignore non-deterministic parts. For example, doctest allows you to use a placeholder.

...

...

C() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS <__main__.C instance at 0x...>

---------- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker https://bugs.python.org/issue39391 _______________________________________

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Serhiy is right, I doubt if we can do something here. A function address is a part of its __repr__() output. ---------- nosy: +asvetlov _______________________________________ Python tracker https://bugs.python.org/issue39391 _______________________________________

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: repr(f2) is not 'non-deterministic'. If one runs it again for the same function object, one gets the same answer. It only changes when one starts over and creates a new function object with the same name but (usually) different id. I think it appropriate that the default object representation include the object id. It may help with debugging or other operations. I agree that pydoc output with run-dependent ids may not be suitable for storage in version control. Either remove or normalize them yourself or ask the pydoc developers to add an option to improve its output. Reclosing. ---------- nosy: +terry.reedy resolution: -> third party status: open -> closed title: Nondeterministic Pydoc output on functions that have functions as default parameters -> Run-dependent Pydoc output for functions default parameters _______________________________________ Python tracker https://bugs.python.org/issue39391 _______________________________________

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Sorry, I was thinking of something else when I closed this. What you want is a new -x option, for some 'x'. The following would help, especially as there is no one who specifically maintains pydoc. a) a specific proposal or set of proposals as to what letter to use for the option and what the result should be. b) a currently failing test case (based on the above). c. a patch for test.test_pydoc adding the test, preferably self-contained (no added file) -- or does any current test already involve an 'at 0xnnnnnnnn' output? d. a patch for pydoc.py making the test pass. ---------- resolution: third party -> stage: resolved -> test needed status: closed -> open title: Run-dependent Pydoc output for functions default parameters -> Pydoc: add option to remove run-specific ids (addresses) type: behavior -> enhancement versions: +Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker https://bugs.python.org/issue39391 _______________________________________