Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> writes: > Python works in terms of objects having names, and one > object can have many names.
Or no names. So it's less accurate (though better than talking of “variables”) to speak of Python objects “having names”. > The names b and c aren't boxes that hold things, they are -- in the > words of one of this group's old hands -- sticky-note labels that have > been slapped on the same object. Right. And in that analogy, the object *still* doesn't “have a name” (since that implies the false conclusion that the object knows its own name); rather, the name is bound to the object, and the object is oblivious of this. I prefer to talk not of sticky notes, but paper tags with string; the string leading from tag to object is an important part, and the paper tag might not even have a name written on it, allowing the same analogy to work for other non-name references like list indices etc. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this | _o__) hour?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list