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: 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 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: <55F36B4C.9020007@gmail.com> <1442016698.95299.381478313.2487CA0E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <85mvws6z45.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <85io7g6xy4.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <85egi46wng.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <1a1a1f6a-27ce-4c1b-807a-43eabaa04abb@googlegroups.com> <04ca9d7c-d02b-4329-bd94-4d18d86b3edf@googlegroups.com> <87egi375wb.fsf@gmail.com> <87wpvu5h7f.fsf@gmail.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: 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 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.