Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> writes: > Honestly, whether you want to call the thing a pointer or a reference, > you have to call it *something*, and I think "reference" is a worse > fit based on its connotations from C++. Whatever you call it, it's an > arrow on a diagram.
With the significant difference that “pointer” implies that it has its own value accessible directly by the running program, such as a pointer in C. That's different from a “reference”, which to my understanding implies the running program does *not* normally have direct access to it as a distinct value. The only way you can use a reference is to get at the object to which it refers. That's the distinction I've been reying on for years, anyway: Python's names are references, collections are collections of references, etc. They aren't pointers because you can't get them as a distinct value; you can only use them to refer to the object at the other end. -- \ “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we | `\ despise, we don't believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky, | _o__) 1992-11-25 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
