Something in the function tutorial confused me.

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2007-08-08, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
> Carsten Haese wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 08:52 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
> [...]
>> The problem is your ambiguous use of the word "assignment." In
>> the sense of the Language Reference, "any assignment to y" is
>> a simple assignment that always modifies a namespace and never
>> modifies an object. In that sense, the mutability of None
>> really isn't the issue.
>> 
>> If you use the broader sense in which "assignment" includes
>> augmented assignments, the mutability of None does become
>> relevant.
>> 
>> I agree that greg's delivery was unduly disrespectful, but I
>> think he was making a valid point.
>> 
>> Hope this helps clear up the confusion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>
> And this is why we should all be using the term "binding",
> which is normal in Python. I'll try to be more careful in
> future.

The Python Language Reference seems a little confused about the
terminology.

  3.4.7 Emulating numeric types
  6.3.1 Augmented assignment statements

The former refers to "augmented arithmetic operations", which I
think is a nice terminology, since assignment is not necessarily
taking place. Then the latter muddies the waters.

So Steve was both wrong and right, depending on the terminology.
I tend to think the world would be a better place if he'd been
right.

-- 
Neil Cerutti
The church will host an evening of fine dining, superb entertainment, and
gracious hostility. --Church Bulletin Blooper