On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:08:00 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Would you call it binding in this case: > > X[0]["z"] = getit() > X[3]["q"] = X[0]["z"] > X[0]["z"].changeit()
It is a binding, but it is not a *name* binding. Since we are talking about name bindings, and comparing/contrasting them to variable assignment in classical languages, I don't think that binding to slots in hash tables or arrays is relevant except to muddy the waters and make things more complicated than they need be. > I think what you are talking about is more usually called "referencing." I don't think so. Its certainly not a term I've ever heard in this context before. >> With a language with more ‘classical’ variable, the assignment of Y = X >> would normal make a copy of that object, so the value Y does not get >> changed by X.changeit(). > > I Java terms, all Python values are boxed. Correct. Java mixes two different models of variable assignment: it uses classical C- and Pascal-like variable assignment for primitive values, and Lisp- and Smalltalk-like name binding for boxed values (objects), leading to two distinct sets of behaviour. That makes Java a good lesson in why it is useful to distinguish between two models of name binding. Java is not the only language with the distinction between "value types" (primitive values usually stored on the stack) and "reference types" (usually objects stored in the heap). C# and other .Net languages often make that distinction: http://net-informations.com/faq/general/valuetype-referencetype.htm Swift is another such language. Other languages which use primarily or exclusively value-types (i.e. the "variables are a named box at a fixed memory location" model) include Algol, Pascal, Modula-3, C, C++, C#, Objective C, D, Swift, COBOL, Forth, Ada, PL/I, Rust and many others. -- Steven D'Aprano "Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
