On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:05 AM, John Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sticky-note analogy has a flaw. You can't stick one
note on top of another. When you say x = y = z, all three variables
now point to the object originally pointed to by z. Then when you
say y = 8, y now points to an
At 11:05 AM 5/8/2008 -0400, John Posner wrote:
The sticky-note analogy has a flaw. You can't stick one note on top
of another. When you say x = y = z, all three variables now point to
the object originally pointed to by z. Then when you say y = 8,
y now points to an integer object 8, but
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM, David MacQuigg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too was a little uncomfortable with the wording of this paragraph, but I
think it isn't the first sentence that needs revision. We really *don't
want* to stick one note on top of another, as the second sentence might
A few months ago, I made a post looking for reviewers for a programming book
for kids, which uses Python. Several members of this list responded and were
involved in reviewing the manuscript.
The book is now in the final stages of production, and it is available for
pre-order on Amazon. It
Partly why it's misleading to speak of names as variables is
that shoptalk tends to prevent us from seeing 8 as the *name*
of an immutable object, one for which the name is hardwired
(but feel free to bind, or assign, other not-spoken-for names
to the same object).
I don't see the
