passing by refference

[Mark Jackson]

aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> In article <baejai$sjcop$1 at ID-169208.news.dfncis.de>,
> Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de) <g2h5dqi002 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >P.S. I make no apology for using the word "reference" either, since I'm
> >also stating what the reference is referring to. I don't understand
> >why there is so much opposition to using this word when talking about
> >Python.  I maintain that, to correctly understand Python's data model,
> >you need some concept in your brain that's functionally equivalent to a
> >reference -- so why not call it that?
> 
> I'm saving up time for a longer response to Donn, but here's a short
> one: I'm not at all opposed to using "reference" and indeed I use it all
> the time.  I just think that using "binding" is preferable in most cases
> because it gets people out of the pointer mindset.

My collegiate debate coach did a fair amount of traveling, and as a
consequence often found himself ordering breakfast in unfamiliar
restaurants.  He fancied his eggs prepared in a particular way:  "break
the yolks as soon as the eggs hit the pan, then over hard."  Bitter (or
at least unpalatable) experience had taught him that these
instructions, although unambiguous, were not robust; they were often
understood as "over hard" and the eggs cooked accordingly.

So he invented a new label:  "Eggs Timbertrail."  Ordering this way
would evoke a question ("what's that?"); the subsequent explanation was
the same, but he was assured that the waitperson was already out of the
"over hard mindset," and a successful breakfast was now much more
likely.

-- 
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
	The asking of questions is in itself the correct rite.
					- Confucius