passing by refference

[Donn Cave]

Quoth aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz):
| In article <ba3i32$1nv2$1 at nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
| Donn Cave <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote:
| >Quoth aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz):
|>| In article <ba3b8s$22ng$1 at nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
|>| Donn Cave <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote:
|>| [quoting Aahz]
|>|>| 
|>|>|   ``In Python, names contain bindings to objects.  A binding is a
|>|>|     reference, but experienced Python programmers do not use "reference"
|>|>|     because references are not accessible within Python programs (unlike
|>|>|     pointers in C).''
|>|>...
|>|> On the other hand, I don't get the reasoning either.  Are bindings
|>|> accessible within Python programs?
|>|
|>| Nope.  That's why I think "binding" is better than "reference".
|>
|> OK, I don't need to pursue that, just want to point out that if you're
|> making a case for this terminology, it is as clear as mud to earthbound
|> intellects like mine.
|
| Hey, "earthbound intellect" is *my* line.  You can't steal it!
|
| Anyway, by "clear as mud", do you mean before or after explanation?

I restored your initial statement.  If either of your statements is
explanation, then after;  or, if explanation is forthcoming, before.

	Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu