"Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > "Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > > > So you've had time to think about how you would define value, in a > > > few words. Any ideas? > > > > Not yet. The reason is that I am still trying to figure out > > what a value is myself. Do all objects have values? If > > not which do and which don't? What's the value of int(1)? > > An object? Some otherwise unreachable thing that > > represents the abstract concept of the number 1? > > What the value of object()? A few weeks ago I turned > > to that page for enlightenment, with the results I reported. > > > > > I find the topic difficult, myself. I think you really have to apply > > > some context to the question, so there may not be any satisfactory > > > definition for the language reference. > > > > I have a hard time accepting that. I do not think there > > is any aspect of human thought that cannot be described > > by a sufficiently skilled writer. > > But you're asking for more than that. We're not just talking > about how people think about value, you want a definition that's > suitable for a language reference. Whereupon you would indeed > run into the kinds of questions you pose above, and more. > > > > But maybe it would be simple with the right focus. If we could somehow > > > define value, how would that help? I mean, presumably we need to > > > understand all this stuff because we want to write some software, and > > > if we dive in without understanding, our attempts will be plagued with > > > conceptual errors. Is there something about value in particular that > > > seems to be a problem here? ``No, you idiot, that's not a value - > > > THIS is a value!'' > > > > Yes, see above. How can you feel confident working with > > things that aren't understood? (c.f. this thead about > > problems resulting from python beginner's misconceptions > > about references.) > > I'm saying that the definition of value doesn't contribute to > my understanding of my work. I guess we might say that the > whole point of a computer programming language is a mechanism > for the representation and manipulation of values, and our > task is to understand the mechanism enough to work with it. > That's what the language reference is for.
I think the difference in our perspectives is that you already *know* what a value is, not necessarily in a way that allows you to write a defintion, but certainly in a way that allows to work effectively with them. As a Python beginner, I do not know, and I need something more than "it is something an object has". I do NOT need eiher some formal specifcation, nor a metaphysical discussion that relates it to platonic ideals and other such concepts. Surely there is some middle ground? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
