In article <[email protected]>,
Rhodri James <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Fundamentally, the concept of a single unique name for any object isn't
>something built into the language (or, indeed, most languages I can think
>of). An object can have no names (though it'll promptly get garbage
>collected if it isn't assigned to a name somehow), or just as easily
>one or many names.
Slight tangent: I prefer to use "binding target" ("target" for short) for
the generic term describing the left-hand side of an assignment
statement. Consider
L[1] = C()
(where L is a list and C is a class)
It seems to me that while L and C are properly described as names, L[1]
is not really a name, it's an expression describing the location to be
used for binding. (The Python docs also use this terminology, at least
some parts of them.)
--
Aahz ([email protected]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote
programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
