Aurélien Campéas wrote: > none a écrit : >> Hello, >> >> IIRC, I once saw an explanation how Python doesn't have >> "variables" in the sense that, say, C does, and instead has bindings >> from names to objects. Does anyone have a link? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ami > > That's something I've often heard and I don't get it. Somehow I don't > understand how C variables are not like python bindings (the differences > being that C variables are statically typed and completely disappear at > run-time; are these differences important enough to warrant such a shift > in terminology ? (yes there are some other differences, but then the > question is asked in a context of pedagogy, where the audience is > introduced to the basics)) > > I mean : aren't C variables also bindings from names to objects ? Or what ?
Thanks. It's very possible you're right - I don't know. There seem to be some differences however. To name a few: 1. A C variable exists regardless of whether you're storing something in it. Not so for a python "variable" - so it's a bit really more like a name for something that exists independently. 2. C variables (or C++ objects) completely disappear when out of scope, but that's not necessarily true of Python objects. 3. C++ references have the semantics that if a = b, and you write a.c = 3, then b.c == 3. This is also true in Python. But then if a = b, and then you write b = 5, then a is still bound to the original value of b, so it's not exactly like a reference. 4. Etc. So on the one hand, you're obviously right, and maybe there's no room for a paradigm shift. OTOH, if the simplest explanation is "it's like a C/C++ variable/reference/pointer except for 1, 2, 3, 4,...", then maybe it is different. I just don't know, hence my question. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
