[Python-Dev] ctypes: is it intentional that id() is the only way to get the address of an object?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 9:58 AM Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > 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.
> Isn't this what the ctypes.py_object type is for?
I didn't know about it when I posted that (as, I suspect, others also
didn't), and as others have pointed out, this is a prime target for a
docs update. Scanning the docs as of today does not suggest a better
way to do things.