Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"

Akira Li 4kir4.1i at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 04:26:11 CEST 2015

Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> writes:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:17 am, Akira Li wrote:
>>>> I don't see why the model that can't describe range(1) in Python 3
>>>> pretends to be complete.
>>> Please explain.
>>> range(1) returns a range instance. What is hard about that?
>> Look at the last example:
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.general/782626/focus=782704
> Still not sure what the problem is. As per Python's object model, the
> lists contain references to range objects. a contains two references
> to the same range object, b contains references to each of two
> distinct range objects. What of it?

For me, there is no problem. "parcel tags" [1], "box and arrows"[2] are
all the same (note: "labelled box"[3] that may contain an object is a
different model).

The talk about being "complete" is caused by the following quote from
Random832 message [4]:

  If the "parcel tags" model can't show it, then the "parcel tag" model
  clearly is not a correct and complete depiction of how Python actually

The purpose of the examples in [5] is to demonstate that neither models
are "complete" i.e., there is (obviously) behavior of a Python program
that they can't describe.


More information about the Python-list mailing list