Joe Strout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, OK, that's great. But there are several standard pass-by- > somethings that are defined by the CS community, and which are simple > and clear and apply to a wide variety of languages. "Pass by object" > isn't one of them.
"Call-by-sharing" *is* one of them, and the term has been around since the 70s: http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=637 > I guess if you want to campaign for it as a shorthand for "object > reference passed by value," you could do that, and it's not > outrageous. There's no need for a campaign. The term has already been used in the academic literature for 34 years. > But to anybody new to the term, you should explain it as exactly > that, rather than try to claim that Python is somehow different from > other OOP languages where everybody calls it simply pass by value. It's not true that "everybody calls it simply pass by value". > OK, if there were such a thing as "pass-by-object" in the standard > lexicon of evaluation strategies, I would be perfectly happy saying > that a system has it if it behaves as though it has it, regardless of > the underpinnings. There is "call-by-sharing" in the standard lexicon of evaluation strategies, and it's been in the lexicon since 1974. > However, if you really think the term is that handy, and we want to > agree to say "Python uses pass by object" and answer the inevitable > "huh?" question with "that's shorthand for object references passed by > value," then I'd be OK with that. Excellent. We can all agree to get along then! |>oug -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list