Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:40 pm, Ben Finney wrote: > > > It's still not been expressed what “fake” refers to here. Or, rather, > > what “real” thing was being expected, and how these don't qualify. > > They are faked in the sense that in this implementation, the object > lifespan that you think of as the Python programmer has little if any > connection to the actual lifespan of the chunk of memory representing > that object.
Since that's nothing to do with the definition nor API of an object ID, I think all the uses of “faked” so far in this thread just don't apply to PyPy's object IDs. > The PyPy implementation has to take special actions to preserve the ID > across object recreations. That is what I mean by "faked". Thanks for the interesting explanation. I don't think any of this makes PyPy's object IDs in any sense not-real-object-IDs, so I disagree with using “faked” to characterise them. None of CPython, Jython, PyPy, etc. have object IDs that are anything but real object IDs, IMO. -- \ “[Entrenched media corporations will] maintain the status quo, | `\ or die trying. Either is better than actually WORKING for a | _o__) living.” —ringsnake.livejournal.com, 2007-11-12 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
