"Christopher Subich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: >> In a more simplistic view, I'd reverse the phrasing... The name >> "x" is assigned to the object "y" (implying it is no longer attached to >> whatever used to have the name)
I agree that this is the more useful way to see it. I intentionally said 'useful' rather than 'correct' since I consider the former to be the way to judge viewpoints. And I base the usefullness view on an informal (and yes, unscientific) mental tabulation of newbie confusions posted to c.l.p over several years. But better data could revise my judgment.. > No, because that'd imply that the object 'y' somehow keeps track of the > names assigned to it, I disagree with your implication and see it the other way. To me, 'the object is bound to a name' implies that the object can only be bound to one name while the name could have many objects bound to it, which is the opposite of the case. Analogy: in an elementary school, students are assigned to (bound to) a room. The name=>room binding is recorded in a list (the 'namespace', alphabetical for lookup of names) in the principal's office. The rooms do not have to have a list of the students assigned to them, even though one could be derived from the master list, as one could Put another way: 'the name is bound' implies pretty clearly that the name is acted up, and it is that acting upon that makes the object a (new) property of the name. Nothing need be done to the object itself. This is even clearer if 'bound' is expanded to 'associated with object-fetch information'. So 'x = y' means "associated name 'x' with the object-fetch information that name 'y' is currently associated with." >The object is the property of the name, not vice versa. I agree, and see the binding of the name (to the object, as explained above) as that which sets the property. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
