Modifying Class Object

[Steve Holden]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Michael Sparks:
> [Due to the appearance of reasoned discussion (it's not practical to read it all!)
[...]
>> Therefore to say "in reality the implementation will be passing a
>> reference or pointer" is invalid. There is after all at least one
>> implementation that does not rely on such machine oriented language
>> details.
> 
> I'm sorry, but see above: in itself it's just yet another a fallacy.
> 
> And as an argument in a debate with me it's misrepresenting.
> 
I see we are still all out of step with you. If it's a fallacy then I'd
like to see a reasoned logical explanation of its fallaciousness.

As far as I can see, if someone says "implementing Python implies the
use of pointers" as you appear to be doing, then Michael's argument
neatly demolishes that argument by providing a counter-example: there is
an implementation of Python that does not use pointers.

You, however, dismiss this as a fallacy, and suggests it somehow
misrepresents you. And yet you wonder why people call your behavior (not
you) paranoid.

[...]
> 
>> I sincerely hope that my reply does not offend or inflame you, 
>> since that is not the intent. I do hope it educates you and puts
>> into context the responses you have gained from others.
>> 
>> After all, one simply shouting in a corner saying "YOU'RE ALL
>> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I'M RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT", when one does not to
>> understand what one is talking about does not tend to engender warm
>> fluffy feelings or sentiments of authority towards such an
>> individual. Be it me, you, or anyone else.
>> 
>> At the moment, you appear to me to be engaging in such a behaviour.
>> Now you don't know from Jack and probably don't care about  my
>> viewpoint, but I would really appreciate it if you would try not to
>> be inflammatory in your response to this. (Since you do appear to
>> also have a need to have the last word)
>> 
>> Hoping this was useful on some level,
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I elected to respond to just /one/ of the many arguments you
> presented.
> 
> The other arguments, about why there are no references in Python, 
> shared, however, the basic property of being logical fallacies
> packaged in kilometers of rambling text.
> 
And you can say this without, by your own admission, even reading it. It
makes me wonder why we have paid you the compliment of engaging you in
debate, since this is the most transparent evidence to date that what
comes back will be unrelated to the arguments presented.

regards
 Steve
-- 
Steve Holden           +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010  http://us.pycon.org/
Holden Web LLC                 http://www.holdenweb.com/
UPCOMING EVENTS:        http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/