Transitivity and direction of "binding" (was Re: Comments requested: brief summary of Python)

[Michael Hudson]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:

> Cameron Laird wrote:
> > 
> > The approach I like is to discard any language that
> > encourages newcomers to regard
> >   i = "Hello"
> > as an "assignment", and to identify it instead as
> > what it is for Python:  a *binding* to the name 'i'.
> 
> Is it "binding the object to the name", or is it "binding the name
> to the object".  

I'd say it's "binding the name to the object".

> Or both?  

No.

> Or neither?  

No.
 
> Why?

A name has zero or one bindings, but an object may have an arbitrary
number of bindings to it.

> And does it matter? ;-)

Not a lot.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article,
  then hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck
  his dog and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is
  just extremism.                                 -- Paul Tomblin, asr