Values and objects

[Rustom Mody]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 8:03:28 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> 2) Returning them. This is a lot more dodgy, owing to the
> dangling-pointer issue, but as long as you accept that the reference
> to a variable doesn't ensure its continued life, I suppose this might
> be acceptable. Maybe. But it's pushing it.
> 
> 3) Constructing at run-time. Really REALLY pushing it. You can malloc
> and call that a "variable", but it's not a variable any more, it's
> just a patch of memory. In fact, all this proves is that variables
> represent patches of memory, and patches of memory are first-class.
> 

Not sure what the 'just' is emphasizing/delimiting. Consider:
int i;
int *pi;
char *pc;

pi = &i;
pc = pi;

If your 'just' were just (excuse pun!) then *pi would be identical to *pc -- 
just the same patch of memory

> 
> Not liking the results here. You might just as well define that all
> Python variables must be backed by a dictionary (it's just as true as
> "all C variables must be backed by memory") and then define the
> first-class-variable as a combination of a dict and a key.

Yes this is the rub.
C pointers are first-class but half-assed due to dangling pointers --
(Function returning address of an automatic variale etc)

Likewise python's name-spaces go almost all the way to first-classing variables 
but not quite as Marko discovered when locals() looks like a dict, waddles like 
a dict but does not quack like a dict.