[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:26:06 +1100
Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I'm not a ctypes expert, so I might have this completely
> wrong. If so, I apologise for the noise.
> The id() function is documented as returning an abstract ID number. In
> CPython, that happens to have been implemented as the address of the
> I understand that the only way to pass the address of an object to
> ctypes is to use that id. Is that intentional?
Can you explain in detail what you're doing?
If you're calling a C API taking a PyObject*, it seems like you should
be using ctypes.py_object as argument type specifier. Various examples
can be found with Google.