[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote: >>> You can only define the semantics of Python (in this case) by >>> providing an *arbitrary* mapping to an imaginary abstract machine. >>> There's no way to define the objective abstraction. >> >> So aside from an artificial sense of purity, what's the point in >> defining object identity *at all*? Why invent an arbitrary number that >> you can't even see? > > Without such an invisible identity, you can't specify the desired > behavior of a Python program. (Well, id() returns a visible identity, > which you could equate with the invisible one.) > > I understand that not everything should be strictly formal, but all > attempts at clarifying Python's object system necessarily involve > evoking some silly abstract model. "x is y" returns True if and only if x and y refer to the same object. You have yet to demonstrate that the above statement is underspecified. ChrisA

- Prev by Date:
**About the implementation of del in Python 3** - Next by Date:
**Test 0 and false since false is 0** - Previous by thread:
**About the implementation of del in Python 3** - Next by thread:
**About the implementation of del in Python 3** - Index(es):