I agree, there is no reason to dig into call-by-??? terminology with new "untainted" programmers. The sticky-note analogy is all we need for these students. The figures in Michael's book are excellent.
However, having been tainted by C, I am finding the discussion interesting. I just don't understand why there is so much confusion with these call-by terms. Does the function get a copy of the object or a reference to the original object? It's got to be one or the other. At 10:11 PM 5/5/2008 -0500, Michael H.Goldwasser wrote: > Python's model is quite clean, it just doesn't match up perfectly > with the standard call-by-??? terminology. In call-by-reference evaluation, a function receives an implicit reference to the argument, rather than a copy of its value. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_by_value By this definition, Python's model is call-by-reference, even though the reference (pointer) is not seen by the user. C's model is call-by-value, even though that value can be an explicitly-evaluated address (pointer). -- Dave _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
