On 2/20/18 5:47 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On 19-02-18 16:18, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 2/19/18 9:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:28:26 +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
 The most basic question, which people making such claims often
answer, is "Do you mean that values are strongly typed, or that names
are? Or did you mean that variables are, because if so Python doesn't
even have variables in the sense that you mean" Programming language
semantics are complex.
An excellent point.
The distinction between typing *values* and *names* is a good one.
I guess I'll have to continue to grit my teeth as people say, "Python
doesn't have variables." Why can't we say, "Python's variables work
differently than other languages"?
Which other languages. It seems python variables seem to work just like
lisp, scheme and smalltalk.
That is one of the reasons for my frustration: the "Python has no
variables" slogan is incredibly C-centric. I understand the importance
of C, and in the early days of Python, there was good reason to assume
that people were familiar with C. These days, there are far more
mainstream languages that work just as Python does.
(for objects, not primitives).