In article <5099ec1d$0$21759$c3e8da3$76491...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:23:44 +0000, MRAB wrote: > > >> Incorrect. Python uses what is commonly known as call-by-object, not > >> call-by-value or call-by-reference. Passing the list by value would > >> imply that the list is copied, and that appends or removes to the list > >> inside the function would not affect the original list. This is not > >> what Python does; the list inside the function and the list passed in > >> are the same list. At the same time, the function does not have access > >> to the original reference to the list and cannot reassign it by > >> reassigning its own reference, so it is not call-by-reference semantics > >> either. > >> > > I prefer the term "reference semantics". > > > Oh good, because what the world needs is yet another name for the same > behaviour. > > - call by sharing > - call by object sharing > - call by object reference > - call by object > - call by value, where "values" are references > (according to the Java community) > - call by reference, where "references" refer to objects, not variables > (according to the Ruby community) > - reference semantics > > > Anything else? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#Call_by_sharing Call by social network? The called function likes the object. Depending on how it feels, it can also comment on some of the object's attributes. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
