On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:15:30 +1300, greg wrote: > Dale Roberts wrote: > >> Just as the Pass By Reference idiom deserves a unique name to >> distinguish it from Pass By Value (even though it is often Pass By >> (address) Value internally), so Pass By Object Reference deserves a >> unique name (even though it too is Pass By (reference) Value >> internally). > > Since Python only has one parameter passing mechanism, there's no need > to give it a name at all. If you're having to explain it, just explain > it, and don't bother naming it!
This would make sense if Python was the only computer language in existence, but it isn't. Consequently people who know these other languages come along and ask "So is Python call by value or call by reference?". The correct answer to that is "No", but unfortunately there are far too many people who refuse to accept the existence of any third parameter passing mechanism and therefore confuse the issue by hammering the round peg of Python's calling mechanism into the square hole of their pre- conceptions. Depending on those particular pre-conceptions, they will insist that Python "clearly and obviously is call by reference", or that it is "clearly and obviously call by value, where the values are references". -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
