En Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:44:23 -0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Nov 17, 8:54 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Candidate to *Longest and Most Boring Thread of the Year* - started more than a month ago, currently discussing "The official definition of call-by-value", and "What't the value of an object": http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/6163956596a8c082/Nice. The Python Reference defines objects, the core concept of Python, as id, type, and value, and then leaves one clueless about what a value is, and several notable Python contributors declare the subject boring.
The C99 language standard does not define what "memory" is, even if many parts on the language definition rely on how memory actually works. This has not prevented programmers from writing good C code.
Arithmetic (and algebra) was developed way before mathematicians could give a good definition of what a "number" really is.
I don't feel anybody would improve their Python skills chasing what the "value" of an object is, least to make contortions so some arbitrary definition of "call by value" be applicable to the language. It's a boring topic for *ME* and the above "Most Boring Thread" is just *MY* opinion; if you or anyone else enjoy the discussion or consider it important in some way, of course you're all free to continue as long as you wish.
BTW, I think some other thread got a few more than 300 posts, so this one -currently at 268- still has a chance to get the first prize as Longest Thread - but you'll have to write hard :)
I guess this goes a long way to explaining why the Python docs suck so badly in many areas.
I don't think so, anyway, I guess the usual reply is "all contributions are welcome".
-- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
