>> > One of the reasons I would like to formulate a good >> > model of an object's value and type is so that I could >> > try to offer something better. Responses like yours >> > are significantly demotivating. >> >> And yet you argue when people try to explain to you that objects don't >> *have* values, objects *are* values. Objects have attributes, which are >> references to other values. One of an object's attributes is its type. > [...] > > Steve, since Gabriel does not want to go for the > record in this thread :-), I posted my response as > a reply to your most recent message in the "Official > definition of call-by-value..." thread. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
And this thread has a good chance of becoming the "Longest and Most Boring Python-URL Weekly Python News and Links Thread". Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
