On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | But the default behavior may become the "true" copy, that seems
> | simpler for a newbie to grasp.
>
> To me, it is the opposite. If I say
> gvr = Guido_van_Russum # or any natural language equivalent
> do you really think a copy is made?
>
> Copying is much more work than defining an alias or nickname.
It's interesting. If I say minigvr= Guido_van_Rossum except smaller,
my listener carries both the original model and the exception around
during the conversation. minigvr= type( 'MiniGvr',
( Guido_van_Rossum, ), dict( size= 0.5 ) )(), creates a MiniGvr class -
and- -instantiates- it, just with a different size. It depends-- if
you say, "what if mini-guido were to go to the store" it's very
different from saying, "what if mini-guidos were to go to the store"?
The first 'mini-guido' is an instance, and you're running the
hypothesis in a sandbox or playpen. The second is different. The
listener subclasses Guido_van_Rossum, but still in the sandbox. If
you said, 'a mini-guido went to the store yesterday', the listener
would run type( 'MiniGvr', ( Guido_van_Rossum, ), dict( size= 0.5 ) )
().goestostore( time= Time.Yesterday ).
What's more, you can the next day say, "Remember that miniguido that
went to the store," "Remember that miniguido I told you about
yesterday," or even, "Remember that miniguido that went to the store
that I told you about?" and your listener can say, "Yeah, that was two
days ago now." However, isinstance checks sometimes don't work:
"Remember that GvR that went to the store?" "No, you never told me
GvR went to the store.... wait, unless you mean the -Mini-GvR."
Your actual call is closer to this: memory.add( event=
Event.GoToStore( type( 'MiniGvr', ( Guido_van_Rossum, ), { 'size':
0.5 } )() ), time= Time.Yesterday ), but Go is also abstracted
( (destination= Store) ), Store is abstracted (SomeStore), (unless you
and the listener have a "the store" you always call in common), and he
may actually interpret "was at the store" instead of "went to",
depending on your interaction's particular idiolect; you might use
slightly different words to tell a co-worker the same story. Last but
not least, the data that filters down into the hardware of the brain
is partly non-propositional-- the listener gets a somewhat clear
picture in your preamble, which varies in clarity and what detail from
speaker to speaker and listener to listener pair.
If you want a computer language to model human thought, then is there
even such thing as subclassing? Otherwise, it's a toolbox, and pass-
by-reference is to a flathead screwdriver as pass-by-value is to a
Phillips. Which one do you want to carry, and which is the snap-on
extension? Doesn't that vary trade-to-trade, tradesman-to-tradesman,
and even site-to-site?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
