On 11/07/2012 01:01 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Robinson
<andr...@r3dsolutions.com> wrote:
Interesting, you avoided the main point "lists are copied with list
multiplication".
It seems that each post is longer than the last. If we each responded
to every point made, this thread would fill a book.
It already is :)
Anyway, your point was to suggest that people would not be confused by
having list multiplication copy lists but not other objects, because
passing lists into functions as parameters works in basically the same
way.
Not quite; Although I wasn't clear; The variable passed in is by
*value* in contradistinction to the list which is by reference. Python
does NOT always default copy by reference *when it could*; that's the point.
Hence the programmer has to remember in foo( x,y ), the names x and y
when assigned to -- *DONT* affect the variables from which they came.
But any object internals do affect the objects everywhere.
A single exception exists; My thesis is for a single exception as well
-- I think Python allows that kind of thinking.
So actually I did address
this point with the "call-by-object" tangent; I just did not
explicitly link it back to your thesis.
My apology for not proof reading my statements for clarity. It was
definitely time for a nap back then.
Potayto, potahto. The distinction that you're describing is between
"strict" versus "non-strict" evaluation strategies. Hinging the
distinction on the non-descriptive words "call" and "pass" is lazy
terminology that should never have been introduced in the first place.
I would do it again. Other's have already begun to discuss terminology
with you -- I won't double team you.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
