Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"

Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	2015-09-12 12:58 -0700
References	(14 earlier) <d55daf4b-b7c2-41fb-8010-76d6d65eb6b8@googlegroups.com> <mailman.425.1442068881.8327.python-list@python.org> <1a1a1f6a-27ce-4c1b-807a-43eabaa04abb@googlegroups.com> <8e16c020-e734-401d-92cb-10a2cdddd497@googlegroups.com> <55f4657f$0$1675$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Message-ID	<0034a8bd-cd81-4c5e-9759-1ce1aa97e2e2@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"
From	rurpy@yahoo.com

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/12/2015 11:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:17 am, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
>> the model of Python I eventually 
>> developed is very much (I think, haven't read the whole thread) like
>> Random832's.  I think of boxes (objects) with slots containing "pointers"
>> that "point" to other boxes.  Even today when dealing with complex
>> Python data structures, I draw boxes and arrows to help me understand
>> them and think of the arrows as "pointers".
> 
> If you're going to abuse terminology, why don't you call the boxes "floats"
> since they "float around in memory",
> [...]

I was not proposing that, I was talking about the use of the term
"pointer".

> C is not the only, or even the first, language to have standardised on a
> meaning for pointer in computer science. Pascal had pointers long before C,
> and I'm sure Pascal wasn't the first either.

[I'm not sure about the "long before" part given they were nearly
contemporaneous.]

Right, and each of them uses the word (and others like "function", "call"
"arguments", etc) in their own specific way, which they define as part
of the description of the language. "function" in C is different than
"function" in Pascal which is different than "function" in Python.

That C (or Pascal) used the term first does not mean that it was
"standardized" by that use to have that precise definition forever after.

> "Pointer" is a standard primitive data type across dozens of languages: it's
> an abstract data type holding the memory address of a variable (either a
> named, statically allocated variable, or more often, an anonymous,
> dynamically allocated variable). As such, it requires that variables have a
> fixed address. If the variable can move, the pointer will no longer point
> to the variable.

See my comments on "fixed address" in another post.  Your definition of
"address" is too narrow.

> If you want to use "pointer" to refer to something else, the onus is on you
> to make it clear that you're using it in a non-standard way.

Of course. Nobody should ever say (a least formally) just "pointer" and
expect the entire (assumed diverse) audience to have a common single 
understanding of what is meant. But that applies to most terminology 
like "reference" as well.  It is why language documentation has things 
like definitions and glossaries.

> Some day, most programmers will be using nothing by dynamic languages which
> lack pointers-the-data-type,

I don't think there is any direct relationship between pointers and
dynamic languages. Go is not a dynamic language yet it does not not
allow unrestrained pointer use a'la C.

My impression is that unmanaged pointers (in the C sense) are recognized
these days as dangerous and that nearly all new languages including static
ones manage "pointers" (perhaps under a different name) to prevent the
problems that occur with C.

> and the term will lose its baggage and can be
> safely used as a generic English term for "a thing which points". The tiny
> minority of systems programmers writing device drivers and kernel code in
> Rust (C having been long-since delegated to the wastebin of history -- well
> that's my fantasy and I'm sticking to it)

That's fine, so we are talking about the far distant future, maybe
year 3000 or so. :-)

> will learn that, outside of their
> own niche, "pointer" does not have the technical meaning that they are used
> to, and everyone else will be as blissfully unaware of said technical
> meaning as the average programmer today is of continuations and futures.
> 
> But this is not that day.

I think you underestimate the ability of human beings (even programmers)
to interpret words in a context dependent way.

The question is whether what "pointer" means in languages that use the
word is *so* different than its meaning in the Python sense, that using
it for Python is more misleading than helpful. You think so, perhaps
because you focus on the unmanaged and memory-address aspects of its use.
I consider those as non-determining characteristics of a thing that points
to something and instead consider its pointingness to be its defining
characteristic, in those languages and in Python, and thus find it 
perfectly descriptive for Python.

Thread

Re: Python handles globals badly. tdev@freenet.de - 2015-09-11 14:26 -0700
  Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-11 23:50 +0200
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:01 -0600
      Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-12 07:22 +0200
        Re: Python handles globals badly. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-09-12 18:05 +0100
          Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:04 +0200
            Re: Python handles globals badly. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 22:06 +1000
              Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:11 +0200
                Re: Python handles globals badly. Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-09-13 05:17 -0700
                Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-15 05:36 +0200
        Re: Python handles globals badly. Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-09-12 10:18 -0700
          Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:06 +0200
            Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:10 +0200
        Re: Python handles globals badly. Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:32 -0600
          Re: Python handles globals badly. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:05 +0200
    Re: Python handles globals badly. random832@fastmail.us - 2015-09-11 20:11 -0400
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:34 -0600
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 03:57 +0100
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 04:01 +0100
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 00:06 -0400
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 00:16 -0400
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 05:17 +0100
    Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” (was: Python handles globals badly.) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-12 14:27 +1000
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 05:34 +0100
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 00:34 -0400
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 00:42 -0400
      Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 02:32 +1000
        Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 09:54 -0700
          Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 03:06 +1000
          Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-09-12 10:14 -0700
          Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 03:24 +1000
            Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 03:34 +1000
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 05:45 +0100
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-12 14:52 +1000
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 01:03 -0400
      Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 02:50 +1000
        Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 10:04 -0700
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 01:07 -0400
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-12 15:20 +1000
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 06:25 +0100
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 01:35 -0400
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 01:42 -0400
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 06:54 +0100
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:02 +1000
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-12 07:05 +0100
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:13 +1000
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 02:15 -0400
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 02:25 -0400
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-12 16:26 +1000
      Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:46 -0700
        Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-09-12 16:41 +0200
          Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 08:13 -0700
            Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 09:17 -0700
              Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 10:12 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 04:14 +1000
              Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 03:48 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 11:45 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 22:50 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-13 18:34 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-14 04:34 +0100
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 12:58 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-09-12 15:14 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 15:34 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 00:14 +0100
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-09-12 17:02 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 17:28 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 17:44 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 03:22 +0100
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-09-12 19:25 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:35 -0600
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-13 12:42 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-13 08:31 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 01:39 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-14 06:48 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-13 18:13 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-13 12:32 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 17:23 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:39 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 10:19 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 17:25 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-09-12 18:07 -0700
            Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:54 +0300
              Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 11:21 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Jussi Piitulainen <harvesting@makes.email.invalid> - 2015-09-12 23:02 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 17:10 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 12:30 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Jussi Piitulainen <harvesting@makes.email.invalid> - 2015-09-13 09:40 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:13 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-12 17:27 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:04 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:03 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:04 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 02:17 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-14 11:10 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:22 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-14 12:38 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:23 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-15 02:59 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 20:24 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-09-14 11:29 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:30 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-09-14 13:16 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:32 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:30 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:26 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:52 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 03:30 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:58 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-13 19:38 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 17:48 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:10 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-15 03:03 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:34 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-16 00:26 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-09-14 10:51 -0700
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-09-16 20:14 +1200
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:18 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-16 18:24 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:33 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 03:59 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-14 14:02 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-16 00:14 +1000
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 20:45 +0300
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-09-14 14:00 -0400
                Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0300
        Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-09-13 03:08 +1000
          Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 10:26 -0700
        Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-09-13 11:13 +1000
    Re: Python handles globals badly. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:27 +1000
    Re: Terminology: “reference” versus “pointer” Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:31 +1000
  Re: Python handles globals badly. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:10 -0600
  Re: Python handles globals badly. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-09-12 00:03 +0100

csiph-web