On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:29 pm, Random832 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 08:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Bart didn't say anyone had defended it. He made an observation: >> >> "that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to 'x'" >> >> which is factually correct. And this does refer to the "ducks limp" >> thread. > > Except it doesn't. Because no-one on that thread made the claim that it > is. There's absolutely nothing in the thread (except maybe earlier > instances of him and you misrepresenting others' claims) about 'y' being > a name reference to 'x', so there's nothing in that thread for it to > reasonably refer to.
The thread is a discussion about name binding and references. And what do you know, the hypothetical "name y is a reference to name x" is, amazingly, about name binding and references! Hence the connection between the two. You know, there's not actually a rule or law that says you have to automatically take the contrary position to everything I say. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
