On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > >> In Python a name (*not* a "variable", though people do talk loosely >> about "instance variables" and "class variables" just to be able to use >> terms familiar to users of other to languages) is simply *bound* to a >> value. The only storage that is required, therefore, is enough to hold >> a pointer (to the value currently bound to the name). > > in tom's world, the value of an object is the pointer to the object, not > the object itself,
If you meant "he value of a *variable* is a pointer to an object, not the object itself", then bingo, yes, that's what it's like in my world. > so I'm not sure he can make sense of your explanation. The explanation makes perfect sense - i think the names-values-bindings terminology is consistent, correct and clear. It's just that i think that the variables-objects-pointers terminology is equally so, so i object to statements like "python is not pass-by-value". tom -- The sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead channel -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list