Aurélien Campéas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:09:59 +0100):
> none a écrit : > > 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 ? This is actually something that comes up a lot on #python on freenode irc. Usually we can explain it by calling things nametags that get bound to objects and such, but sometimes it help to show people globals() and locals() - that you can really just keep track of names with a dictionary (And this is indeed, as I understand it, what's actually being done). There's nothing that stops several names from being bound to the same object, but names need to be unique. It's quite a good illustration, I think. It certainly helped me. Oh, and there's the thing about people calling them references, which isn't really accurate in the C++/Java or pointer way. Considering a C++/Java reference can actually change what it, in that if you send a reference to a variable into a function/method, you can risk that your own "copy" will be "pointing" (For a lack of better words) to a different object. This won't happen in Python. Mutable objects make it seem very similar though. -- regards, Robin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
