Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If you equate "arguments within the called procedure" to the *name* of the arguments, then changing the arguments would mean changing the NAME
If "changing the name" means "rebinding the name", then I agree -- that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
If you equate "value" with "object", as you suggested some posts ago,
*I* didn't suggest that, someone else did. I was just pointing out that you can use the word that way if you want, as long as you're consistent about it. And being consistent means using it in the same way when talking about assignment and about by-value parameter passing. If you insist that one of these implies copying the "value" but the other doesn't, then you're being inconsistent.
At least some sections of the Java community seem to prefer a misleading and confusing use of the word "value" over clarity and simplicity, but I for one do not agree with them.
I don't see anything inherently confusing or misleading about it. Confusion only arises when some people jump up and say that it's wrong to use the terms that way, because it might cause confusion...
In the general case, you can't emulate call-by-reference by passing a name, because you don't know what the name of an object is.
That's true, you need to communicate the namespace as well, either implicitly or explicitly. So a (namespace, name) pair, or a (sequence, index) pair in the case of a sequence item, would be the equivalent of a "reference" in the sense meant by "call by reference". -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
