passing by refference

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Joshua Marshall <joshway_without_spam at myway.com>:
| Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote:
... [re C example]
|> There's simply nowhere in Python that assignment performs a value copy
|> that way.  Using "value" to describe both the references to objects and
|> to the objects themselves is too confusing.  Therefore "call-by-value"
|> is confusing and should be avoided when discussing Python.
|
| I think you're just going to have to accept that there are those who
| disagree with you.

He also has to point out that they're wrong, that's what's awkward
about it.

Any number of people here can explain how Python works in a jiffy,
it's quite simple.  After two days of wrangling over it, we have to
consider the possibility that call by value is indeed confusing when
applied to Python, and that by itself - especially without exotic
definitions of "value" - it does not explain how Python works.

If that's how you want it, you can evidently arrive at an internally
consistent terminology where call by value does apply to Python, and
in that respect we can just agree to disagree - it's not where my head
is at, but apparently it works for you.

But here in comp.lang.python, it is wrong to introduce this term in
the attempt to be helpful, because it isn't helpful, it's confusing
and it should be avoided for that reason.

	Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu