On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:13:43 PM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 01:17 am, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > Anton gave a picture explaining why/how references are needed and to be > > understood > > Antoon gave a picture demonstrating one model of Python's semantics. > > It's a nice model that has a lot going for it, in particular that it matches > the > most obvious implementation. But it doesn't describe *Python* semantics, it > describes an overlap between Python the language and the implementation of the > Python interpreter. > > In particular, consider the picture of a name binding to a value: > > > +-----+ > | | > | 5 | > | | > +-----+ > ^ > | > <x> > > > This picture has three entities, but only two of them exist in Python: > > - the object 5; > > - the name "x" (names are not values in Python at runtime, but they > are entities which exist in Python source code at compile time). > > The third entity is the reference linking the name to the object (the arrow). > This isn't a runtime value in Python, nor is it a compile time entity that > exists in source code. It is pure implementation, and as such, exists outside > of the Python domain.
A common fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Python does not have references/pointers/whatever ∴ Python does not have references (or whatever you want to (not) call it) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
