Laura Creighton <l...@openend.se> writes: > If I had a time machine, I would go back to early days of Python and > ban the use of the term 'assignment' and 'value' both. I would insist > that the term 'binding' be used instead, though if you want to use the > verb refer, to be synonymous with bind, well, I think that would work.
+1 > (If not, next trip with the time machine, I ban that one as well.) I've never been able to remember where the keys are kept; I'm sure they keep being moved by previous drivers. > It is crystal clear than people on this list mean very different > things when they use the term 'value', and every one of them thinks > that Python agrees with them. Cutting this knot may require a new > word. Indeed, in the past I used the term “value” as synonymous (in Python context) with the term “object”. I have become convinced through this discussion that I should no longer use the terms that way. Instead, an object *has* a value at a point in time; if the object's value can change, we say the object is mutable. The syntax for literals describe a value, but the object once created may change its value. Typically, ‘is’ compares object identity; ‘==’ compares object value. The concepts are distinct, so I apologise for misleadingly conflating them in my terminology. -- \ “Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one | `\ unpardonable sin.” —Thomas Henry Huxley, _Essays on | _o__) Controversial Questions_, 1889 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
