Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:26:18 PM UTC+5:30, Akira Li wrote: >> Rustom Mody writes: >> >> > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:11:49 PM UTC+5:30, Laura Creighton >> > wrote: >> >> In a message of Sat, 12 Sep 2015 05:46:35 -0700, Rustom Mody writes: >> >> >How about lay-English ontology in which "point to" and "refer to" are >> >> >fairly >> >> >synonymous? >> >> >> >> This I have found is important in teaching, which is why I favour 'bind' >> >> and 'binding' -- rather than pointer, pointer, refer to, referring. >> > >> > Well we can play humpty dumpty and make any word mean whatever we like. >> > However if you are a teacher you will recognize a need for pictures. >> > And (as far as I can tell) "Random832" finds a need for the box-n-arrow >> > diagrams of classic data-structure books >> >> Speaking of pictures and names in Python >> http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/handout.html#other-languages-have-variables > > Yeah cute > [I think I will even use these in my classes] > However they dont address the issue that I think random832 is > referring to.
The pictures despite their simplicity reflect the actual model that Python language uses i.e., any deviations are an implementation artifact and may be ignored. > viz. I have two variables (or names!) say a and b which look the same >>>> a > [[1,2],[1,2]] >>>> b > [[1,2],[1,2]] > And yet doing >>>> a[0][0] = "Oops!" > gives a data structure one "Oops!" > whereas doing it to b mysteriously gives 2 Sorry, I haven't followed the whole thread. Could your provide a complete code example? Mention what you expect to happen and what happens instead in your case. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
