Much thanks to all for their time, but Ned in particular...I learned something new about Python!!
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 22:48:32 UTC-5, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 11:38:33 PM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:26 am, Random832 wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016, at 20:09, MRAB wrote: > > >> Not true. Importing doesn't copy the value. > > >> > > >> Importing a name creates a new name in the local scope that refers to > > >> the same object that the imported name referred to. > > > > MRAB is correct here. > > > > > > > Yes, the value of a variable is a reference to an object. Can we not > > > have another round of this right now? > > > > Sure, if you stop spreading misinformation about variables in Python and > > cease the insanity of claiming that the value of a variable is not the > > value you assign to it, but some invisible, unreachable "reference". > > > > x = 999 > > > > The value of x is 999, not some invisible reference. > > > > x = [] > > > > The value of x is an empty list, not some invisible reference. > > We just went through all this. It's clear to me that there are different > ways of looking at these underlying mechanisms, and different people find > truth in different ways of describing them. The virtual world we live in > is complex because of the differing levels of abstraction that are possible. > Some of this disagreement is really a matter of choosing different > abstractions to focus on. > > Most importantly, it's clear to me that we aren't going to come to some > simple consensus, certainly not by throwing around words like "insanity." > > Perhaps at least in this thread we can limit ourselves to addressing the > OP and their question directly, rather than fighting with each other over > which answer is correct? > > --Ned. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
