Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” (was: Python handles globals badly.)
ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Sat Sep 12 06:27:38 CEST 2015
Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> writes:
> Honestly, whether you want to call the thing a pointer or a reference,
> you have to call it *something*, and I think "reference" is a worse
> fit based on its connotations from C++. Whatever you call it, it's an
> arrow on a diagram.
With the significant difference that “pointer” implies that it has its
own value accessible directly by the running program, such as a pointer
That's different from a “reference”, which to my understanding implies
the running program does *not* normally have direct access to it as a
distinct value. The only way you can use a reference is to get at the
object to which it refers.
That's the distinction I've been reying on for years, anyway: Python's
names are references, collections are collections of references, etc.
They aren't pointers because you can't get them as a distinct value; you
can only use them to refer to the object at the other end.
\ “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we |
`\ despise, we don't believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky, |
_o__) 1992-11-25 |
More information about the Python-list