At some point, I have to just let this go, as I think we all on this
list have a pretty good understanding of the differences between C and
Python in terms of assignment and parameter passing. But let's _not_ use
the term pass by reference when talking about Python. You CANNOT
CHANGE THE CONTENTS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM, John Zelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At some point, I have to just let this go, as I think we all on this
list have a pretty good understanding of the differences between C and
Python in terms of assignment and parameter passing. But let's _not_ use
the term
Would it not be better to describe the differences between C and Python
variables directly rather than using an analogy?
In C, a variable is the address of a storage location that contains its
value. If that value is itself an address then the variable is described
as a pointer.
In
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christopher Thoday
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it not be better to describe the differences between C and Python
variables directly rather than using an analogy?
Sometimes pure analogies are better though because if you talk
too literally in terms of
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:49 PM, kirby urner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Names are little more than Unicode string literals with top-level
significance, each paired with an object in a dictionary (the
namespace).
Postscript to the above remark:
I finally got around to using some Chinese
I've suggesting seeing 8 as a name only briefly, temporary gestalt
switch, then go back to seeing it as a literal, kind of like a name
in that you can do dot notation on it, i.e. there's an underlying
object that's responsive to these triggers (like 8 .__add__(5)
instead of just 8 + 5). But is
kirby urner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've suggesting seeing 8 as a name only briefly, temporary gestalt
switch, then go back to seeing it as a literal, kind of like a name
in that you can do dot notation on it, i.e. there's an underlying
object that's
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Mark Tolonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kirby urner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've suggesting seeing 8 as a name only briefly, temporary gestalt
switch, then go back to seeing it as a literal, kind of like a name
in that you can
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
