* Michael Sparks:
Hi Alf,
Before I start, note we're talking about semantics, not
implementation. That distinction is very important.
Yes.
It would seem to readers that posters here do not grasp and are unable to grasp
that distinction.
However, all those references to implementation aspects, persisting in the face
of corrections, have just, IMHO, been consistent attempts at misrepresentation.
On Feb 11, 4:49 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
*The* standard general language independent definition?
[ of pointer ]
Yes.
As defined where?
For example, as I used as reference in my first posting, the Java language spec.
But it has nothing specifically to do with Java. It is a basic concept in
computer science, that (most) CS students learn in their *first year*.
E.g.
<quote src="http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/106/";>
A pointer stores a reference to something. Unfortunately there is no fixed term
for the thing that the pointer points to, and across different computer
languages there is a wide variety of things that pointers point to. We use the
term pointee for the thing that the pointer points to, and we stick to the basic
properties of the pointer/pointee relationship which are true in all languages.
The term "reference" means pretty much the same thing as "pointer" --
"reference" implies a more high-level discussion, while "pointer" implies the
traditional compiled language implementation of pointers as addresses. For the
basic pointer/pointee rules covered here, the terms are effectively equivalent.
</quote>
This is where you have gone wrong. You have taken a first year
undergraduate
academic generalisation and assumed that it applies to The World.'
I'm sorry to disappoint, but no. It was a random Google hit to find a first-year
text that perhaps posters here could understand. Not insinuiting anything about
their mental prowess or lack thereof, but just something they might understand
given a repeatedly demonstrated inability to understand such basics, or even to
understand the concept of reference to a definition of a term.
Please do consider that my usage of the term "pointer" has always, in this
thread, including the first article I posted in this thread, been with explicit
reference to the Java language spec's meaning.
You may argue that those who wrote that language spec are confused about things
or whatever, but that's rather stretching it, wouldn't you say?
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice
there is (so the saying goes).
The World however has another place for defining terms. That place is
of highly
varying quality, but generally a better place to correct semantics of
terms.
Who knows, eventually there may be a single commonly accepted
viewpoint. (Which
would bring a whole new level of pedantry of course )-:
I am referring to Wikipedia here. (this is a vague attempt at humour,
rather
than an attempt to patronise which it may also come over as)
I understand.
You may note that that Wikipedia article refers to an article that I wrote about
pointers in C++.
So, this must be the most silly "argument by authority" ever offered.
I find that amusing and would have included a smiley except that I think that
that would incur further flames.
It's no criticism of you; I do appreciate your effort, thanks. And I reiterate
that the meaning of "pointer" I have used is the meaning in the Java language
spec. And that that's about semantics, not about implementation, and not about C
pointers or Pascal pointers or whatever else that some would rather wish it was.
[snip]
In the following that I snipped you had good discussion except for (as I could
see) a fallacy-based denial of references existing in Python. I don't think
there's any point in discussing that further, because it's evidently a religious
matter where rational arguments -- and I've tried a few -- don't reach, in
spite of the extreme triviality of the subject matter. Thanks for the effort at
non-flaming discussion, it *is* appreciated.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
