On 01/02/2015 12:57 PM, Alex Kleider wrote:
On 2015-01-01 17:35, Alan Gauld wrote:
Repeats replicates the reference to the object but
does not create a new object.
This part I can understand but, as Steven has pointed out,
this behaviour changes if the object being repeated is immutable.
Why would one get a new object (rather than a new reference to it)
just because it is immutable? It's this difference in behaviour
that depends on mutability that I still don't understand even though
Steven did try to explain it to me:
"""
If the list items are immutable, like ints or strings, the difference
doesn't matter. You can't modify immutable objects in-place, so you
never notice any difference between copying them or not.
"""
You have it backwards. The behavior doesn't change between mutable and
immutable, the visibility of the behavior changes.
If the object is immutable, you can't tell it hasn't been copied.
An "assignment" does not create a new object, immutable or not. it
simply binds the left side to the object on the right.
a = x
does not copy x, no matter what type it may be. It simply binds a to
the object.
--
DaveA
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
