On 2007-10-03, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On my Gentoo system:
>>>
>>> >>> import os
>>> >>> os.path
>>> <module 'posixpath' from '/usr/lib64/python2.5/posixpath.pyc'>
>>>
>>> It's just a variable that happens to point to the posixpath module.
>>
>> There's no "pointing" going on. It's another name bound to the
>> same object, of equal status to the 'posixpath' name.
>>
>> Python doesn't have pointers, and even "variable" is a
>> misleading term in Python. Best to stick to "name" and "bound
>> to".
>
> In Python, all names _are_ variables. They are not "bound" to
> objects. The value of os.path is a pointer. It's implemented as
> a pointer, it has all the semantics of a pointer.
No. A pointer is also an iterator.
void duplicate(char *d, const char *s)
{
while (*d++ = *s++)
;
}
What does that look like implemented with Python names?
def duplicate(d, s):
raise AbstractionViolationError("Python identifiers aren't pointers.")
Moreover, it seems difficult to promote the concept of a pointers
in a language which doesn't provide a "take the address of an
object" operation.
> Honestly, why do people react to the word "pointer" as though
> computers have to wear underwear to conceal something shameful
> going on in their nether regions?
Refraining from thinking about pointers (unless I have to) saves
wear and tear on the old bean. I also like to think of 5 as an
integer most of the time.
--
Neil Cerutti
Will the last person to leave please see that the perpetual light is
extinguished --sign at New England church
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
