Nested function scope problem

[Gerhard Fiedler]

On 2006-07-27 09:42:16, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>> 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.

I see that, and this thread and your and others explanations have been
helpful in seeing deeper. 

But can't this be expressed -- maybe -- as the variable name "holding" the
reference that is associated to it through the dict? Aside the explicit
mentioning of the dict (which I agree is in itself a value, especially
since that dict exists and can be accessed as dict), the image seems to
provide the same analogy.

Gerhard