Mutability of function arguments?

[bonono at gmail.com]

Mike Meyer wrote:
> bonono at gmail.com writes:
> > Mike Meyer wrote:
> >> "ex_ottoyuhr" <ex_ottoyuhr at hotmail.com> writes:
> >> > I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> >> > bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> >> > versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
> >>
> >> C++'s '&' causes an argument to be passed by reference. Python does
> >> that with all arguments. Any changes you make to the argument in the
> >> function will be seen in the caller unless you explicitly make a copy
> >> to pass.
> >>
> > except when foo and bar are bound to immutable objects.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > In C:
> >
> > int foo=1;
> > int bar=2;
> >
> > void update(int *a, int *b) { *a=3; *b=4}
> >
> > update(&foo, &bar);
>
> Note that this update is using an assignment statement, and thus
> changing the arguments.

void update(int a, int b) { a=3; b=4}

Is this also an assignment statement ?

>
> > In Python:
> >
> > foo=1
> > bar=2
> >
> > def update(a,b): a=3; b=4
> >
> > update(foo,bar)
>
> This update isn't changing the objects, it's rebinding the names in
> the local name space. Since you didn't change the objects, there's no
> change to see in the calling environment.
>
> > Many people from C/C++ background would be tricked for this situation.
>
> That's because they don't understand binding. Any language that has
> bindings instead of has assignments will "trick" them this way.
>
Sure, any language that behave like this would trick them, I am not
saying python is the only one or that there is anything wrong with this
behaviour. I was just saying that it is a situation that they get
tricked, because of their "perception" about "=", especially when they
are told that any change to the arguments are seen by the caller.