On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:31 am, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Chris, that is one of the best explanations for why "references equals >> pointers" is *not* a good explanation for Python's behaviour. > > Many people here seem to have lost sight of the > fact that the word "pointer" existed in the English > language long before C, and even long before computers.
Many people here seem to have lost sight of the fact that the word "computer" existed in the English language long before ENIAC and Colossus, and even before Babbage's Difference Engine. > If I draw two boxes on a blackboard with an arrow > between them, I think it's perfectly reasonable to > call that arrow a pointer. Given how rich the English language is, and how many other words people could use (arrow, cue, finger, guide, index, indicator, lead, needle, signpost...) but don't, I think it is quite disingenuous to claim that people describing Python references as "pointers" mean it in the generic sense rather than the computer science sense. Especially when those people often explicitly state that they are using "pointer" in order to make it easier for C programmers to understand. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
