Controlling assignation

[harold fellermann]

On 13.06.2005, at 19:23, Terry Reedy wrote:

>
> "harold fellermann" <harold.fellermann at upf.edu> wrote in message
> news:73cd19a37027b3d16c44d04ea560ee32 at upf.edu...
>
>> if you write
>>>>> a=A()
>> an instance of class A is created and bound to the local identifier 
>> 'a'.
>
> I think it perhaps better to think of the label 'a' being bound to the
> object rather than vice versa.   For one, a label can only be bound 
> (stuck
> to, like a stick note) to one object at a time while one object can 
> have
> many labels (and other references) stuck to it.
>
>> If you later write
>>>>> a=5
>> the object 5 is reassigned to the same identifier,
>
> Or one could say that the label 'a' is removed from the A() object and
> reassigned to the 5 object.  Since the 5 object may have numerous other
> connections, and since those connections are unaffected by the new
> connection to 'a', whereas the previous assignment of 'a' is broken, I
> think it better to say that 'a' is being reassigned, not 5.

yeah. I have never seen it this way, but you are right! Binding the 
identifier/label to the object is a much better perspective. thanks for 
the lesson :)

- harold -


--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
--