On Apr 26, 7:44 pm, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 10:18 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 4:42 pm, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In a mathematical sense, you're saying that given f(x) = x+2, using > > > f(x) is somehow more "direct" (whatever the hell that even means) than > > > using 'x+2'. That's just not true. We freely and openly interchange > > > them all the time doing mathematics. Programming is no different. > > > If f(x) and x+2 are freely interchangeable then you have referential > > transparency, a property that only purely functional languages have. > > In python: > > I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. Steven is > trying to claim that there's some sort of meaningful difference > between calling an operation/algorithm/function by some name versus > handing out its definition. I was merely pointing out that we > routinely substitute the two when it is appropriate to do so. > > My apologies if you somehow took that to mean that I was implying > there was referential transparency here. I couldn't think of a better > example for what I was trying to say. > > Adam
And my apologies... I forgot to state my main point: Programmer accessible object identity is the principal impediment to referential transparency. In a functional language one can bind a name to a value -- period. There is nothing more essence-ial -- its platonic id -- to the name than that and so the whole can of worms connected with object identity remains sealed within the language implementation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
