Fredrik Lundh wrote: ...snip... > afaik, the Python Language Reference never defines the word "reference". > It carefully defines words like "object" and "value", though, and terms like > "call by object" or "call by object reference" are perfectly understandable > if you use the words as they are defined in the language reference.
It (sec. 3.1, "Objects, values and types") is not what I would call a good definition . About values it says only - that they are something that all objects have. - they can be mutable or immutable. It then has a few sentences about mutability, so after reading it you will know that, whatever a value is, it can be changed for some objects but not others. But what exactly it is that is being changed is still a mystery. Further down it talks about container objects "containing" references to other objects and of those being part of it's value. Part? What does it mean to contain? Can one determine from reading this, if an attribute value is part of the object's value? (I couldn't). On my list on Python Doc problems that need fixing, is "defintion of object values" and it has been on there for nearly a year. So I don't think referring people to the Language Reference is a good way to help them understand Python. Python badly needs a rewritten Language Reference. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
