On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 7:56:43 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > 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.
So... Pascal is not Niklaus Wirth's Pascal but some vague pidgin extension(s) of it. Whereas pointer is a specific C semantics, not a broader implication from C, nothing connected with the general English usage. Playing humpty dumpty arent we? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
