Op 20-06-16 om 16:53 schreef Steven D'Aprano: > 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.
But being about name bindings and reference doesn't imply it is about name references. > You know, there's not actually a rule or law that says you have to > automatically take the contrary position to everything I say. There is also not a rule of law that says you have to automatically introduce semantic games into the discussion when someone else might have a point. -- Antoon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
