Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"

[Ned Batchelder]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:26:39 PM UTC-4, Akira Li wrote:
> My point is that neither models are detailed enough to describe
> meaningfully the behavior of Python code in the general case.

This is of course true, because a model is never detailed enough to
fully describe the real thing.

I'm curious what aspect of the example here isn't meaningfully
described by the boxes and arrows notation?  It seems to me that
usually the problem is that the diagram is simplified at a certain
level of detail.  For example, the range objects here are presented
as atomic, without revealing that they hold references to other
objects.

What do you feel is missing from Steven's diagram?

--Ned.