Denis Kasak wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote: >> Denis Kasak wrote >>> You could, however, argue that the swap function doesn't work as >>> expected (e.g. from a Pascal or a C++ POV) simply because the >>> underlying objects aren't mutable. The objects *do* get passed by >>> reference; >> We are getting down the same road every couple of months. Please don't >> explain Python's calling system with terms like "call by reference". >> It's plain simple wrong. The correct term is "call by sharing" or "call >> by object reference" although I myself don't use the latter term because >> it sounds too much like "call by reference". Every time somebody tries >> to explain Python with "call by reference", the person is confusing >> himself and others. > > I assure you I am not confused about Python's object model / calling > system. I was arguing, from a purely theoretical standpoint, that the > same system Python uses could be described in terms of > call-by-reference with some additional constraints. I am by no means > arguing that this is a good way of explaining it or trying to explain > it to someone in terms of call-by-reference. I just don't think it's > "plain simple wrong", just confusing and suboptimal. > Well, what's the benefit of discussing such a description, then? Regulars on c.l.py see this subject arising so regularly it's a bit like "there's nothing new under the sun". Honestly, it's been discussed /ad nauseam/ lately.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
