anything like C++ references?

[Stephen Horne]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:47:44 -0700, Michael Chermside
<mcherm at mcherm.com> wrote:

>I have nothing whatsoever to add to this... it is just so clearly and
>simply stated that I felt it was worth repeating. Of course, lots of
>other people said the same thing in other ways, but I felt that Ian's
>phrasing is particularly useful in explaining things to programmers
>coming from a C-style background, even if it doesn't seem to reach
>Stephen Horne.

I know what is being said. And I don't *just* have a C background.

However well you explain what Python does, that doesn't mean that it
is doing the right thing.

Mathematics says variables bind to values. Simple. But Python doesn't
respect that. I don't care how the binding is implemented as long as
the implementation respects the principle, but Pythons implementation
has side effects - it is not transparent to the programmer. This
causes confusion and errors. And saying that 'this is the way it is so
get used to it' does not seem, to me, to be the Python way.

When I was arguing against PEP238, a major argument for the change was
simply that the division operator did the wrong thing, causing
confusion and errors. The fact that PEP238 required a seriously
incompatible change, and that experienced Pythonistas were used to the
old way, was seen as a relatively minor concern.

When I argued effectively that newbies should be told 'this is the way
it is so get used to it', that really didn't go down too well. But
right now, it seems that the majority are using precisely that
argument against me.