Op 2005-11-10, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Context recovered from top posting.] > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Daniel Crespo wrote: >>> Well, I hope that newcomers to Python don't confuse himselves :) >> This mutable/immutable object and name/variable is confusing. > > Only if you have to overcome a conviction that variables behave in a > different way. If you've never seen them behave another way, or have > already gotten used to this model from another language (it dates back > to the 60s, if not the late 50s), then it's no problem. I'm sure the > problem exists in the opposite direction, except that few people > travel that route. > > Most OO languages do the name/variable thing, but some of the popular > ones aren't consistent about it, giving some types "special" status, > so that sometimes "a = b" causes b to be copied onto a, and sometimes > it causes a to become a pointer to b. I find a consistent approach is > preferable.
But what about a consistent approach, that allows choice. Like having an assignment operator (let use @= for it) next to a (re)bind operator. We could then have something like the following. a = 5 b = a a @= 7 b ==> would result in 7. I think such option is usefull and I sometimes miss it in python. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list