Any other Python flaws?

[Martijn Faassen]

Mattias Engdegård <f91-men at nada.kth.se> wrote:
> In <9gcu9g$gm4$1 at newshost.accu.uu.nl> m.faassen at vet.uu.nl (Martijn Faassen) writes:

>>I agree that nobody agrees on whatever 'call-by-reference' means, or what
>>'call-by-value' means. I mean, I'm here confused why you'd say C++ doesn't
>>support call-by-value while Python apparently does. :)

> I didn't mean to say that C++ doesn't support call-by-value, but that it
> also has call-by-reference. Sorry, bad typing.

Let's not go into the discussion. I know the semantics of C++ and I know
the semantics of Python, but I don't what semantics you're calling 
'call-by-foo' and which you're calling 'call-by-bar'. :)
   
> This is the first time I have seen any disagreement of what call-by-{value,
> reference, name} means since these are fairly standard terms used for
> decades, but I'm not going to argue further about it

Oh, well, look up a thread in groups.google.com. Nobody was agreeing
on it. Decades-old books were referenced, but that didn't seem to 
give some conclusive evidence either. :)

> In any case this is has no bearing on any Python flaws (on the contrary, I
> find its argument passing mechanism quite reasonable and better than the
> explicit-dereferencing that Perl does) so it's very tangential to the
> subject

I agree Python's argument passing mechanism is nice, whatever we'll call it. :)

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?