Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"
rurpy at yahoo.com
rurpy at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 13 02:23:28 CEST 2015
On 09/12/2015 05:14 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 12/09/2015 23:34, rurpy--- via Python-list wrote:
>> On 09/12/2015 04:14 PM, Emile van Sebille wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2015 12:58 PM, rurpy--- via Python-list wrote:
>>>> The question is whether what "pointer" means in languages that
>>>> use the word is*so* different than its meaning in the Python
>>> I can't find a single reference to pointer in the python docs
>>> outside of ctypes. What is its python sense?
>> I should have said "proposed sense" (except I don't really mean
>> proposed as in "let's change all the docs" but as "let's stop the
>> hissy-fits when someone uses the term"), i.e. the way I, I think
>> random832, and others use it re python. Sorry, I see in retrospect
>> my phrasing could be confusing.
> The "hissy-fits" are caused because Python the language does not have
> pointers, so by definition there is no need to mention them in any
> way, shape or form in any Python thread.
Right. "And our country has no social unrest so there is no need
for any mention of social unrest on our internet." (a common
justification for censorship in some countries.) You can't define
away reality, Bucky.
But the issue is not one that can be expressed as a binary "has" or
"has not". It is about how to best describe how Python works and
what descriptions work best for what groups of people (at least in
> What is so difficult to understand about that?
You'll find my questions about that in my previous posts. You
can find them here:
If you have any specific serious questions I'll be happy to try
to answer them for you.
> I would say it's not rocket science, but the
> insurers that paid out over Ariane 5 maybe wouldn't be too happy with
No clue what the Ariane 5 has to do with Python or how Python
works is described.
More information about the Python-list