breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Mar 5 22:46:29 CET 2014
On 05/03/2014 21:33, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-03-05 23:14, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> When I talk about an object's memory address, I'm not referring to
>> what might be revealed by gdb, for example. That is, I'm not
>> talking about the process's virtual address space, nor am I talking
>> about the physical address on the address bus. I can simply define
>> that the object's memory address is whatever id() returns.
> Let me translate what the rest of the group hears:
> When I talk about an object's memory address, I'm not referring to
> *what every other computer scientist/professional means by "memory
> address" rather I can simply make up my own definition for "memory
> address" so that it means something that proves my point.*
> It's perfectly valid for the definition of id() to return negative
> numbers, yet in just about every situation (both hypothetical CS
> worlds and out in the real world), a memory-address is defined as an
> unsigned number.
I actually hear the spam song, except s/spam/troll/
Didn't we learn anything from the sadly still ongoing saga of our
resident unicode expert? :(
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
More information about the Python-list