On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 8:58:13 AM UTC+5:30, rand...@fastmail.us wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 23:20, Rustom Mody wrote: > > The word immutuable happens to have existed in English before python. > > I also happen to have used it before I knew of python > > The two meanings do not match > > I am surprised > > Is that surprising? > > They don't match only if you consider the objects a tuple references to > be part of the tuple. > > You cannot change the reference. It will always point to the same list.
You just repeated what Chris said, replacing 'immutable' with 'same' There was a list: [1,2,3] At some point that list is found to be(come) [1,2,3,4] They dont look same to me. IOW if immutable₂ is to have cognitive resonance with immutable₁ it needs to be 'deep-immutable' in analogy to deep-copy. Anyways... All this is rather far from my original point Python may or may not have genuine immutables and we may call skin-immutable as 'immutable' We have muddled along thusly for the last 60 years and its called 'imperative programming'. My point is that without a common conceptual basis there is neither communication nor understanding. That common base is usually called math/logic: Your '1/2/3' matches mine Your 'and/or/not' matches mine They are immutable₁ therefore we can think and communicate with them With [1,2,3] ([1,2],[1,2]) that is not the case I regard that as unfortunate [You are of course free to regard that as ok] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
