On 05/24/2013 07:04 AM, Citizen Kant wrote:
Are you referring to this definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Value_%28computer_science%29<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28computer_science%29>


Any chance you can fix your use of gmail to conform to the usual standards? It does it right by default. We have lots of gmail users on here, but you're almost the only one who doesn't have the quote marks on the stuff you're quoting from earlier messages, nor the attribution. So by breaking those conventions, you imply that you wrote the above text, when really you're quoting Steven anonymoously. Worse, then when you start your own text, there's no distinguishing them, unless a reader happens to have read the other message recently enough to remember.

     <SNIP>


I'm referring to that definition. I've found out that, unless for me, it's
useful to think Python in this line.

But that page is mostly wrong or misleading for Python. And it assumes you already know what an expression is, so it's the wrong definition for you as well.

That page refers to another page:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_(computer_science)

to try to define expression. But since that one says that an expression is a combination of many things, including value, it still doesn't help you much, because it's circular.

You concluded for example that A is a value, which of course it's not, in source code. It might be a variable (or the Python approximation to variable), but only if it's a token within the source code.

Tell me, when you learned to drive, did you start by defining what a thread was? After all, an engine would fall apart without threaded bolts, and without an engine there's no point in driving.


--
DaveA
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist  -  Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor

Reply via email to