scope of function parameters

[Ben Finney]

Peter Pearson <ppearson at nowhere.invalid> writes:

> Python works in terms of objects having names, and one
> object can have many names.

Or no names. So it's less accurate (though better than talking of
“variables”) to speak of Python objects “having names”.

> The names b and c aren't boxes that hold things, they are -- in the
> words of one of this group's old hands -- sticky-note labels that have
> been slapped on the same object.

Right. And in that analogy, the object *still* doesn't “have a name”
(since that implies the false conclusion that the object knows its own
name); rather, the name is bound to the object, and the object is
oblivious of this.

I prefer to talk not of sticky notes, but paper tags with string; the
string leading from tag to object is an important part, and the paper
tag might not even have a name written on it, allowing the same analogy
to work for other non-name references like list indices etc.

-- 
 \         “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
  `\   Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this |
_o__)                                    hour?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney