Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #96556

Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"

Path csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!nzpost1.xs4all.net!not-for-mail
Return-Path <random832@fastmail.com>
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; 'method.': 0.05; 'cached': 0.09; 'created,': 0.09; 'garbage': 0.09; 'immutable': 0.09; 'it;': 0.09; 'objects.': 0.09; 'received:internal': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'python.': 0.11; 'explicitly': 0.15; '*never*': 0.16; '__getitem__,': 0.16; 'called,': 0.16; 'iterating': 0.16; 'message-id:@webmail.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:10.202': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2': 0.16; 'received:66.111': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4.27': 0.16; 'received:messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:out3-smtp.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'subject:reference': 0.16; 'subject:versus': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'disable': 0.22; 'sep': 0.22; '(you': 0.23; 'represents': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; "doesn't": 0.26; 'sense': 0.26; 'object,': 0.27; 'start,': 0.27; 'correct': 0.28; 'idea': 0.28; '"do': 0.29; '(maybe': 0.29; '13,': 0.29; 'question:': 0.29; 'objects': 0.29; "we're": 0.30; "can't": 0.32; 'holds': 0.32; 'structure': 0.34; 'ones': 0.35; 'exist': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'created': 0.36; 'subject:" ': 0.36; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'method': 0.37; 'received:66': 0.38; 'why': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'still': 0.40; 'called': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'collection': 0.60; 'header:Message-Id:1': 0.61; 'talking': 0.67; 'physical': 0.72; 'answer:': 0.84; 'stop,': 0.84
DKIM-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=KZZIkS5gk36ACfRzOWJjanqxs4U=; b=R+W38c JvGdi8RmUbiAEwmMXyZCgMR8pvVQcMra2hqOk25j1sxRaBTg15TtZa8+0xM2ubv3 zcJSJn95DNFxG8zAaWS0IxUU9AoI8YC8srts0v5w2zOWovUrsseianE/Yj/f+fQW 6CQj53mys4EdM2TM3gWKeQ13+2zXmgCrKgf2Y=
DKIM-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=KZZIkS5gk36ACfR zOWJjanqxs4U=; b=XUDAWZI0Nqky4Alxax4Uruy/6/NYWmk51uFMlw3zVxY5fc9 fz8V8yPun1MkUPGDMuavGVcu9rgdsEGpsIrM/5M26Y+Zs0arFTdLDLxUfgnD127N SVhZ4Y4kO6j8swkNWFrMWHgKl4X2Dl00DcWJUB0o8gOR2sctzvWfujFmUl+c=
X-Sasl-Enc Dpven3+zoOWQ7x9egXy8wXlW/7n/mi7t07zg09JmRafD 1442187517
From Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>
To python-list@python.org
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Content-Type text/plain
X-Mailer MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-c76b43ce
In-Reply-To <87pp1l6h9a.fsf@gmail.com>
References <c3363$547e74fe$5419aafe$24179@news.ziggo.nl> <55F36B4C.9020007@gmail.com> <1442016698.95299.381478313.2487CA0E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <mt04ao$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>
Subject Re: Terminology: "reference" versus "pointer"
Date Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:38:37 -0400
X-Mailman-Approved-At Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:49:26 +0200
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.520.1442216967.8327.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines 32
NNTP-Posting-Host 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace 1442216967 news.xs4all.nl 23728 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:53859
X-Complaints-To abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.python:96556

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015, at 19:17, Akira Li wrote:
> "do not physically exist" does not make sense. Objects are *never*
> destroyed explicitly in Python (you can only make them
> *unreachable*).

But the objects we've talking about have never been created, because the
__getitem__ method has not been called, because we're talking about the
structure of what _is there_, not the idea of what will happen after you
call some method. The (range, or whatever) object holds no
reference/pointer/whatever (maybe we should just call them arrows?) to
the objects that it will create when you call __getitem__, or even to
the ones that it has created when you've called it, so it doesn't make
sense to put a box in it that will have an arrow pointing to those
objects.

> 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.

Why can't it describe range(1)? A range object in my model would include
the start, stop, and step; _not_ the contents of what you would get by
iterating over it; since that's not part of the physical structure of
the object, but the consequences of calling methods on it.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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