On Nov 17, 11:17 am, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 17, 12:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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. >> >> I guess this goes a long way to explaining why the Python docs >> suck so badly in many areas. > > No, this goes a long way to explain why you don't need a PhD in > denotational semantics or ontology to use Python effectively. The > current discussion on that thread may be interesting to language > lawyers and philosophers but it's pretty much irrelevant in > understanding how Python works.
People use lots of things without understanding them in detail. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter if the Python Docs don't explain for programmer's what an object is (I agree there is no need to describe it in terms of denotational semantics or ontology). There are people who would like to form a reliable mental model of how Python works by reading docs rather than by synthesizing an lot of experiences, mistakes, and experiences into that model. I'll grant you that one needed worry too much about what the value of an object is, relative to innumerably discussed nature of assignment, default argument values, and such, but I think it is important for a full understanding of how Python works. And I emphatically disagree that this is only of interest to language lawyers -- they already know how Python works. It is people like me that need the information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
