[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:50 AM Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote:
>
> I've heard that libraries using ctypes, cffi, or cython code of various sorts in the real world wild today does abuse the unfortunate side effect of CPython's implementation of id(). I don't have specific instances of this in mind but trust what I've heard: that it is happening.
>
> id() should never be considered to be the PyObject*.  In as much as code shouldn't assume it is running on top of a specific CPython implementation.
> If there is a _need_ to get a pointer to a C struct handle referencing a CPython C API PyObject, we should make an explicit API for that rather than the id() hack.  That way code can be explicit about its need, and code that is just doing a funky form of identity tracking without using is and is not can continue using id() without triggering regressive behavior on VMs that don't have a CPython compatible PyObject under the hood by default.
>

I would be strongly in favour of ctypes gaining a "get address of
object" function, which happens (in current CPythons) to return the
same value as id() does, but is specifically tied to ctypes.

ChrisA