Names and bindings (was Re: Scope of instantiated class)

[Aahz]

In article <lku1mpl69n.fsf at pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk>,
Michael Hudson  <mwh at python.net> wrote:
>Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
>> Aahz wrote:
>>> In article <3D3B4F80.B0D6BE07 at engcorp.com>,
>>> Peter Hansen  <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>I'm trying to follow Aahz' advice and avoid "reference" in favour of
>>>>"binding" etc, but I guess I carried it too far! :)
>>> 
>>> <grin>  Your problem wasn't in your use of "binding", but in your use of
>>> "name; I use "target" to refer to the general case of thingy that can
>>> contain a binding, of which names are a subset.  "Names" are words
>>> attached to a namespace (i.e. function local, module global, builtin, or
>>> object attribute).  Another target is an index/key for container
>>> objects.
>> 
>> Hmmm... "target" sounds like the wrong direction.  Shouldn't it
>> be a "source" for the binding?  Or maybe another term which doesn't
>> have what seems to me the potential for confusion would be better.
>
>Common Lisp calls them "places", which is a reasonable name.  It's not
>that much of an issue in Python as there aren't that many of them
>(names, attributes, subscripts, slices).  In CL, you can define your
>own (tho' it's a bit tricky).

What exactly does "place" refer to in Common Lisp?  Is a place capable
of holding a value, or can places only contain references?
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/