On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote: > Denis Kasak wrote >> You could, however, argue that the swap function doesn't work as >> expected (e.g. from a Pascal or a C++ POV) simply because the >> underlying objects aren't mutable. The objects *do* get passed by >> reference; > > We are getting down the same road every couple of months. Please don't > explain Python's calling system with terms like "call by reference". > It's plain simple wrong. The correct term is "call by sharing" or "call > by object reference" although I myself don't use the latter term because > it sounds too much like "call by reference". Every time somebody tries > to explain Python with "call by reference", the person is confusing > himself and others.
I assure you I am not confused about Python's object model / calling system. I was arguing, from a purely theoretical standpoint, that the same system Python uses could be described in terms of call-by-reference with some additional constraints. I am by no means arguing that this is a good way of explaining it or trying to explain it to someone in terms of call-by-reference. I just don't think it's "plain simple wrong", just confusing and suboptimal. -- Denis Kasak -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
