On 25-09-17 19:31, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Antoon Pardon > <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: >> On 25-09-17 16:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>> Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be>: >>> >>>> Op 25-09-17 om 15:16 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: >>>>> No, I'm not. I'm talking about pointers in the abstract sense, both in >>>>> case of Python and Pascal. Neither language gives any hint as to the >>>>> physical nature of the pointer. >>>> >>>> Yes you are. Python doesn't have pointers at the language level. So if >>>> you start talking pointers you are talking about implementations >>>> however abstract. >>> >>> It is difficult to say what is the "native" Python term for the thing. >>> "Binding," maybe? The language spec fails to give it a name. >>> >>> However, when comparing different languages, you had better unify the >>> terminology or you'll be confused by purely terminological issues. >> >> Fine, you have two mappings, a mapping from names to identities and a >> mapping from identities to values. In languages like C, Pascal, ... >> an assignment changes the mapping between the identities and the >> values. In languages like Python, Smalltalk, ... an assignment >> changes the mapping between the names and the identities. > > If by "identity" you mean the integer values returned by id(), then > nope, you're still wrong - there is no mapping from identities to > values. There is a mapping from name to object/value, and from an > object, you can determine its identity. If you like, there's a mapping > from values to identities, but not the other way around.
I'm describing this at a conceptual level. > Unless, of course, you can find something in the Python documentation > that supports this two-step indirection? The fact that the Python documentation describes its sematics differently doesn't contradict that this is a useful model. -- Antoon Pardon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
