Piet van Oostrum wrote: >>>>>>Edward Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (EE) wrote: > > >>EE> Piet van Oostrum wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T) wrote: >>>> >>T> As you can see, the "constant" A can be modified this easily. But if >>T> there were an intuitive mechanism to declare a symbol to be immutable, >>T> then there won't be this problem. >> >>>>Mutability is not a property of symbols but of values. So it doesn't make >>>>sense to declare an identifier to be immutable. And mutability is tied to >>>>the object's type, not to individual instances. > > >>EE> I think he meant immutable binding, not immutable symbol. So >>EE> rebinding/overshadowing a "constant" A would raise an error, but >>EE> mutating the underlying object A refers to would not (unless it too >>EE> were immutable). > > > The way I understood it was that he meant both.
The way I understood it was that he didn't understand it. But then he was gracious enough to admit that under questioning. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
