Reference

[Tim Chase]

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.

-tkc