Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:15:04 +0100, Pierre Barbier de Reuille wrote: > > The key point that, I think, you misunderstand is that symbols are > > not *variables* they are *values*. > > Python doesn't have variables. It has names and objects.
That seems to be what Pierre wants to change. What he hasn't yet made clear is what benefit this brings, over simply using existing basic types (with as much intrinsic meaning -- i.e. none -- as the new object he's proposing). -- \ "I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ..." -- F. H. Wales | _o__) (1936) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
