On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:53 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> Would we be able to end these interminable debates if we just agree that
> we all know how it works,
If only that were true. Not everyone understands Python semantics (or for that
matter, Java/Swift/language of your choice) and I still come across people
confused by the pass by value/reference false dichotomy and which applies to
<language of your choice>.
> and it isn't important to come up with a
> simple name for what it is?
Isn't it?
I find it really difficult to understand people when the meanings they apply to
words are not the same as the ones I use.
Or perhaps I should say:
I disintegrate it really snooze to pyramid running when the ribbons they
apply to sandwiches are not the same as the sleep I use.
*wink*
> It seems clear to me that "value" and
> "reference" are wildly vague terms, used slightly differently by each
> language, and by different people even in the same language if they have
> different perspectives.
Honestly Ned, I don't think that's right. I think you're being awfully
accommodating to what I see as some really egregious misuse of language. I
don't think that "value", in particular, is a vague term.
(I might be persuaded to accept that "reference" has some ambiguity.)
Regardless of whether I'm using Python, Swift, Java, C, Pascal or Scheme, if I
write something like:
x = Parrot(name="Polly")
(using Python syntax for simplicity) and somebody tries to tell me that the
value of x is anything but a Parrot instance named "Polly", I have no time for
that sort of nonsense. They might as well tell me that I'm typing this response
on an elephant.
> Can't we just stop? :)
You take all the fun out of being right on the internet.
--
Steve
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
