On Saturday, June 29, 2013 10:32:01 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 29-06-13 16:02, Michael Torrie schreef: > > The real problem here is that you don't understand how python variables > > work. And in fact, python does not have variables. It has names that > > bind to objects. > > I don't understand why members of this list keep saying this. Sure the > variables in python behave differently than those in C and algol But > they behave similarly as those in smalltalk and lisp and I haven't seen > anyone claim that smalltalk and lisp don't have variables. > > We might as well say that C doesn't have variables, it has names > pointing to memory locations or value containers or something > like that. > > AFAICS there is no reason why "variable" wouldn't be appropiate > for python names as opposed to C names.
Well mathematicians (or to be more precise functional programmers pretending to be mathematicians) claim that any imperative language does not have variables. And recently on this list I saw the exact opposite claim -- functional languages dont have variables. I also remember my statistics teacher dinning it into us -- a random variable is not a variable. So each one varies according to his own notions I guess :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
