Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> writes: > > On Thu, 05 May 2011 07:43:59 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > >>‘x’ is a name. Names are bound to values. Talk of “variable” only > >>confuses the issue because of the baggage carried with that term. > > But to use 'name' as a complete replacement for 'variable',
I don't propose doing that. > In Python I use 'variable' to mean more or less 'something that can be > assigned to', which accords with the way it's used in relation to many > other languages, and doesn't suggest any restriction to things named > by a single identifier. No, I think not. The term “variable” usually comes with a strong expectation that every variable has exactly one name. Your more broad usage would need to be carefully explained to newbies anyway, so I don't see a good reason to use the term “variable” for that either. > Seems to me that anyone taking that connotation from it has not yet > been sufficiently educated about the Python data model itself. Yes, of course. But why not meet such newcomers partway, by not confusing the issue with a term which needs such delicate treatment? > >>Saying “variable” and “has the value” > > But I don't say "has a value", I say "refers to". Good for you. Most don't. -- \ Q: “I've heard that Linux causes cancer...” Torvalds: “That's a | `\ filthy lie. Besides, it was only in rats and has not been | _o__) reproduced in humans.” —Linus Torvalds | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
