On Wed, 16 May 2018 17:03:22 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > So, no, I think the more useful – and less problematic – framing is that > every object *has* a value, and mutable objects may change to a > different value while remaining the same object.
What's an object? That's not a rhetorical question. When I started learning Python, I had *no idea* what "object oriented programming" was, or what classes and objects and instances were. I still don't know if there is a precise, accurate, unambiguous definition. If you're going to describe Python in terms of objects for pedagogical purposes, you better be prepared to explain in simple, plain English, non- technical, unambiguous terms what an object is. Without reference to the CPython (or any other Python) implementation. It is true that "value" has a multitude of meanings. But "object" is even worse. Not only does it also have a multitude of meanings (Websters lists at least 7 for the noun, WordNet gives 5), but it ALSO has a technical meaning in computer science, AND a specific meaning in Python as the name of the type "object", AND also is used as a synonym for "instance". I expect that most people understand that the ordinary English word "value" has a multitude of meanings, and so will avoid thinking of it as a precise technical term. I don't think you can say the same for "object". -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
