Is 'everything' a refrence or isn't it?

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

"Donn Cave" <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> In article <1136858652.907049.120600 at o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
> > "Donn Cave" <donn at drizzle.com> wrote in message
> > news:1136792417.696119 at jetspin.drizzle.com...
> ...
> > > So you've had time to think about how you would define value, in a
> > > few words.  Any ideas?
> >
> > Not yet.  The reason is that I am still trying to figure out
> > what a value is myself.  Do all objects have values?  If
> > not which do and which don't?  What's the value of int(1)?
> > An object?  Some otherwise unreachable thing that
> > represents the abstract concept of the number 1?
> > What the value of object()?  A few weeks ago I turned
> > to that page for enlightenment, with the results I reported.
> >
> > > I find the topic difficult, myself.  I think you really have to apply
> > > some context to the question, so there may not be any satisfactory
> > > definition for the language reference.
> >
> > I have a hard time accepting that.  I do not think there
> > is any aspect of human thought that cannot be described
> > by a sufficiently skilled writer.
>
> But you're asking for more than that.  We're not just talking
> about how people think about value, you want a definition that's
> suitable for a language reference.  Whereupon you would indeed
> run into the kinds of questions you pose above, and more.
>
> > > But maybe it would be simple with the right focus.  If we could somehow
> > > define value, how would that help?  I mean, presumably we need to
> > > understand all this stuff because we want to write some software, and
> > > if we dive in without understanding, our attempts will be plagued with
> > > conceptual errors.  Is there something about value in particular that
> > > seems to be a problem here?  ``No, you idiot, that's not a value -
> > > THIS is a value!''
> >
> > Yes, see above.  How can you feel confident working with
> > things that aren't understood?  (c.f. this thead about
> > problems resulting from python beginner's misconceptions
> > about references.)
>
> I'm saying that the definition of value doesn't contribute to
> my understanding of my work.  I guess we might say that the
> whole point of a computer programming language is a mechanism
> for the representation and manipulation of values, and our
> task is to understand the mechanism enough to work with it.
> That's what the language reference is for.

I think the difference in our perspectives is that you already
*know* what a value is, not necessarily in a way that allows
you to write a defintion, but certainly in a way that allows
to work effectively with them.

As a Python beginner, I do not know, and I need something
more than "it is something an object has".  I do NOT need
eiher some formal specifcation, nor a metaphysical discussion
that relates it to platonic ideals and other such concepts.

Surely there is some middle ground?