On 2006-07-27 09:42:16, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> Are you saying Python variables don't hold references to "actual" Python >> objects? > > Exactly. > >> That idea has been working well for me so far. > > It can only take you so far. Now it's time you know the truth: there are > *no* 'variables' in Python (hence the term 'binding'). > > What you really have is (somewhat simplified, of course) a dict with > names as keys and objects references (think of 'smart' pointers) as > values. So the name doesn't 'hold' anything - it's really nothing more > than a name. And the object doesn't know nothing about which names it's > bound to.
I see that, and this thread and your and others explanations have been helpful in seeing deeper. But can't this be expressed -- maybe -- as the variable name "holding" the reference that is associated to it through the dict? Aside the explicit mentioning of the dict (which I agree is in itself a value, especially since that dict exists and can be accessed as dict), the image seems to provide the same analogy. Gerhard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
