On 2007-08-08, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carsten Haese wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 08:52 -0400, Steve Holden wrote: > [...] >> The problem is your ambiguous use of the word "assignment." In >> the sense of the Language Reference, "any assignment to y" is >> a simple assignment that always modifies a namespace and never >> modifies an object. In that sense, the mutability of None >> really isn't the issue. >> >> If you use the broader sense in which "assignment" includes >> augmented assignments, the mutability of None does become >> relevant. >> >> I agree that greg's delivery was unduly disrespectful, but I >> think he was making a valid point. >> >> Hope this helps clear up the confusion. >> >> Best regards, > > And this is why we should all be using the term "binding", > which is normal in Python. I'll try to be more careful in > future.
The Python Language Reference seems a little confused about the terminology. 3.4.7 Emulating numeric types 6.3.1 Augmented assignment statements The former refers to "augmented arithmetic operations", which I think is a nice terminology, since assignment is not necessarily taking place. Then the latter muddies the waters. So Steve was both wrong and right, depending on the terminology. I tend to think the world would be a better place if he'd been right. -- Neil Cerutti The church will host an evening of fine dining, superb entertainment, and gracious hostility. --Church Bulletin Blooper -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list