twic at urchin.earth.li
Wed Dec 14 19:39:17 CET 2005
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>> In Python a name (*not* a "variable", though people do talk loosely
>> about "instance variables" and "class variables" just to be able to use
>> terms familiar to users of other to languages) is simply *bound* to a
>> value. The only storage that is required, therefore, is enough to hold
>> a pointer (to the value currently bound to the name).
> in tom's world, the value of an object is the pointer to the object, not
> the object itself,
If you meant "he value of a *variable* is a pointer to an object, not the
object itself", then bingo, yes, that's what it's like in my world.
> so I'm not sure he can make sense of your explanation.
The explanation makes perfect sense - i think the names-values-bindings
terminology is consistent, correct and clear. It's just that i think that
the variables-objects-pointers terminology is equally so, so i object to
statements like "python is not pass-by-value".
The sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead
More information about the Python-list