Nested function scope problem

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

danielx wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> 
(snip)
>>
>>>Surprising for me are actually two things: 1- the fact itself, and 2- that
>>>term "binding", and that whatever it means > (I'll have to read more on that,
>>>now that I know the term)
>>
>>a "binding" is the association of a name and a reference to an object in
>>a given namespace. It's different from the common notion of "variable",
>>which is usually a symbolic name for a memory address storing a value
>>(like a pointer to an object's address).
> 
> 
> Wait, I'm not sure I see the difference. Isn't "reference" ~ "C
> pointer". 

For a very large definition of '~' !-)

> Are you saying Python variables don't hold references to
> "actual" Python objects? 

Exactly.

> That idea has been working well for me so far.

It can only take you so far. Now it's time you know the truth: there are
*no* 'variables' in Python (hence the term 'binding').

What you really have is (somewhat simplified, of course) a dict with
names as keys and objects references (think of 'smart' pointers) as
values. So the name doesn't 'hold' anything - it's really nothing more
than a name. And the object doesn't know nothing about which names it's
bound to.


-- 
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb at xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"