Python as first language (Re: static variables?)

[holger krekel]

John Roth wrote:
> "Brian Quinlan" <brian at sweetapp.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1037821774.32088.python-list at python.org...
> > I think that the conceptual problem that people have with assignment
> > being a binding operation is that they are used to names labeling some
> > sort of memory mailbox.
> 
> If you take the word "memory" out of there, that does describe Python.
> I think this is a false distinction. I can find only two issues with
> names:
> 
> One is languages where the name itself has properties (static typed
> languages are a great example of this, although Python is moving
> toward this with the notion of properties in 2.2)
> 
> The other is where there are separate name spaces for certain things.
> For example, methods in Java aren't first class objects, so Java can
> have multiple methods with the same name, and keep them separate.
> Python's name model can't - there can only be one object bound to
> a name at a time (although again, properties seem to violate that rule).

Where do you see "multiple methods" bound to one name?  In fact 
one property object is bound to one name.  Properties are objects 
themselves and they allow you to separately control get/set/del access.  
>From a property object you can get to the three respective functions 
(with the attribute names 'fget','fset','fdel').  Doesn't seem to
blur the lines, does it? 

regards,

    holger