On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:36:24 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
> People here don't describe Python as different just because they *want*
> it to be different. Python acknowledges intellectual debts to many
> languages, none of which is exactly like it.
I understand that Python's object and calling semantics are exactly the
same as Emerald (and likely other languages as well), and that both
Emerald and Python are explicitly based on those of CLU, as described by
by Barbara Liskov in 1979:
"In particular it is not call by value because mutations
of arguments performed by the called routine will be
visible to the caller. And it is not call by reference
because access is not given to the variables of the
caller, but merely to certain objects."
http://www.lcs.mit.edu/publications/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-225.pdf
quoted by Fredrik Lundh here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-May/204379.html
"Call by object/sharing" isn't some new-fangled affectation invented by
comp.lang.python dweebs to make Python seem edgy and different. It's a
term that has been in use in highly respected Comp Sci circles for over
thirty years. In case anybody doesn't recognise the name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
