passing by refference

[Aahz]

In article <baejai$sjcop$1 at ID-169208.news.dfncis.de>,
Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de) <g2h5dqi002 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>P.S. I make no apology for using the word "reference" either, since I'm
>also stating what the reference is referring to. I don't understand
>why there is so much opposition to using this word when talking about
>Python.  I maintain that, to correctly understand Python's data model,
>you need some concept in your brain that's functionally equivalent to a
>reference -- so why not call it that?

I'm saving up time for a longer response to Donn, but here's a short
one: I'm not at all opposed to using "reference" and indeed I use it all
the time.  I just think that using "binding" is preferable in most cases
because it gets people out of the pointer mindset.  Python bindings work
differently from C pointer references, and because so many people in the
Python community work in both Python and C/C++, I think that "binding"
creates clarity.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles:  boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc.  But that's one of the things I like
about it."  --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 93