Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #96537
| Path | csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!bcyclone05.am1.xlned.com!bcyclone05.am1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!nzpost1.xs4all.net!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Return-Path | <python-python-list@m.gmane.org> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.000 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.02; 'exist,': 0.07; 'objects,': 0.07; '*name*': 0.09; '[1]:': 0.09; 'cached': 0.09; 'dict': 0.09; 'exist.': 0.09; 'files:': 0.09; 'garbage': 0.09; 'here?': 0.09; 'immutable': 0.09; 'integers': 0.09; 'issue:': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'python.': 0.11; 'explicitly': 0.15; '*never*': 0.16; 'at.': 0.16; "can't.": 0.16; 'dep': 0.16; 'here).': 0.16; 'labelled': 0.16; 'naming': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'subject:reference': 0.16; 'subject:versus': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'obviously': 0.16; 'else,': 0.18; 'instance,': 0.18; 'language': 0.19; '>>>': 0.20; 'people,': 0.20; '2015': 0.20; 'otherwise,': 0.20; "aren't": 0.22; 'disable': 0.22; 'object.': 0.22; 'precise': 0.22; 'sep': 0.22; 'programming': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'defined': 0.23; '(or': 0.23; 'wrote': 0.23; '(you': 0.23; 'represents': 0.23; 'mon,': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; "doesn't": 0.26; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.26; 'sense': 0.26; 'chris': 0.26; '14,': 0.27; 'correct': 0.28; 'fine': 0.28; '"do': 0.29; 'question:': 0.29; 'objects': 0.29; 'there.': 0.30; 'anywhere': 0.30; 'code': 0.30; "can't": 0.32; 'generally': 0.32; 'url:python': 0.33; 'common': 0.33; 'accessible': 0.33; 'message-id:@gmail.com': 0.34; 'case,': 0.34; 'skip:d 20': 0.34; 'lists': 0.34; 'list': 0.34; 'exist': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; "isn't": 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'created': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'subject:" ': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'really': 0.37; 'being': 0.37; 'agree': 0.37; 'method': 0.37; 'say': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.37; 'wrong': 0.38; 'someone': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'end': 0.39; 'why': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; "didn't": 0.39; 'rather': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'still': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'collection': 0.60; 'term': 0.60; 'url:3': 0.60; 'your': 0.60; "they're": 0.66; 'here': 0.66; 'talking': 0.67; 'therefore': 0.67; 'walk': 0.72; 'physical': 0.72; 'received:89': 0.80; '*does': 0.84; 'answer:': 0.84; 'boxes.': 0.84; 'url:reference': 0.91 |
| X-Injected-Via-Gmane | http://gmane.org/ |
| To | python-list@python.org |
| From | Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer" |
| Date | Mon, 14 Sep 2015 03:30:37 +0300 |
| References | <c3363$547e74fe$5419aafe$24179@news.ziggo.nl> <mt04ao$ite$1@ger.gmane.org> <m2zj0ss2md.fsf@fastmail.com> <85mvws6z45.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <m2k2rws0yr.fsf@fastmail.com> <85io7g6xy4.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <m2egi4rzz5.fsf@fastmail.com> <85egi46wng.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <m2zj0sqjl8.fsf@fastmail.com> <mailman.419.1442039210.8327.python-list@python.org> <d55daf4b-b7c2-41fb-8010-76d6d65eb6b8@googlegroups.com> <mailman.425.1442068881.8327.python-list@python.org> <1a1a1f6a-27ce-4c1b-807a-43eabaa04abb@googlegroups.com> <mailman.435.1442080562.8327.python-list@python.org> <04ca9d7c-d02b-4329-bd94-4d18d86b3edf@googlegroups.com> <87egi375wb.fsf@gmail.com> <m21te3qqeg.fsf@fastmail.com> <87wpvu5h7f.fsf@gmail.com> <m2egi2p2dr.fsf@fastmail.com> <87pp1l6h9a.fsf@gmail.com> <CAPTjJmpRfBxxJQe1qbc5Z5dBHuP7a=pb1GRSCYnCeGaXyHnUUg@mail.gmail.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain |
| X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host | 89.169.229.68 |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:a1cnT6n+zHY/06UvSiBLpnQjykc= |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.20+ |
| Precedence | list |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.508.1442190730.8327.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 71 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1442190730 news.xs4all.nl 23734 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:35181 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| X-Received-Bytes | 7941 |
| X-Received-Body-CRC | 1765329843 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:96537 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Akira Li <4kir4.1i@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you mean this quote from [1]:
>>
>> Although we commonly refer to "variables" even in Python (because it's
>> common terminology), we really mean "names" or "identifiers". In
>> Python, "variables" are nametags for values, not labelled boxes.
>>
>> then *name* is the term that is defined in the Python language
>> reference. The word "variable" we can use in day-to-day programming
>> _unless_ we are discussing issues that are specific to _naming and
>> binding_. In that case, we should use the _exact_
>> terminology. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with using "variables"
>> casually in Python.
>
> Since you're talking about precise terminology, I think it would be
> better to say "name binding", rather than "naming and binding". When
> you talk of naming something (or someone!), you generally mean that
> it's possible to go from the thing to the (canonical) name. With
> people, for instance, you can walk up to someone and say "Hi! What's
> your name?", but with Python objects, you fundamentally can't.
"Naming and binding" is the title from the Python language reference
https://docs.python.org/3/reference/executionmodel.html#naming-and-binding
Otherwise, I agree with you ("name" is better here).
>>> Everything you wrote here has the same issue: The "objects" you are
>>> talking about do not physically exist, but are simply the result of
>>> calling a method on the object. Therefore they do not *belong* on the
>>> diagram, and the diagram not showing them does not mean the diagram is
>>> not complete.
>>
>> "do not physically exist" does not make sense. Objects are *never*
>> destroyed explicitly in Python (you can only make them
>> *unreachable*). You can disable garbage collection completely and it is
>> still will be Python. Immutable objects can be considered immortal e.g.:
>>
>> (1+1) -- question: does the object that represents int(2) exist before
>> the expression is evaluated?
>>
>> The correct answer: it does not matter: int(2) can be created on the
>> fly, a cached int(2) can be reused by a specific implementation --
>> Python doesn't care.
>>
>> I don't see why the model that can't describe range(1) in Python 3
>> pretends to be complete.
>
> "Physically" isn't really the right word for it, given that objects in
> Python code aren't physical and therefore don't *ever* "physically
> exist". My bad there.
>
> But the objects completely do not exist. Yes, with integers you can't
> tell... but what about here?
>
> dependencies = collections.defaultdict(list)
> for fn in files:
> for dep in gather_deps(fn):
> dependencies[dep].append(fn)
>
> Until the moment when dependencies[dep] is requested for some new
> value of dep, the list *does not exist*. It is constructed anew.
> Obviously the end result of this is a dict of lists, and since those
> lists aren't accessible from anywhere else, it makes fine sense to
> talk about those lists as being "contained within" the (default)dict;
> but they clearly didn't exist until they were poked at. They're
> Heisenburg's Lists, I guess...
lists are _mutable_ in Python.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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