Slices time complexity

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 7:56:43 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:31 am, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> 
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> Chris, that is one of the best explanations for why "references equals
> >> pointers" is *not* a good explanation for Python's behaviour.
> > 
> > Many people here seem to have lost sight of the
> > fact that the word "pointer" existed in the English
> > language long before C, and even long before computers.
> 
> Many people here seem to have lost sight of the fact that the
> word "computer" existed in the English language long before ENIAC and
> Colossus, and even before Babbage's Difference Engine.
> 
> 
> > If I draw two boxes on a blackboard with an arrow
> > between them, I think it's perfectly reasonable to
> > call that arrow a pointer.
> 
> Given how rich the English language is, and how many other words people
> could use (arrow, cue, finger, guide, index, indicator, lead, needle,
> signpost...) but don't, I think it is quite disingenuous to claim that
> people describing Python references as "pointers" mean it in the generic
> sense rather than the computer science sense.
> 
> Especially when those people often explicitly state that they are
> using "pointer" in order to make it easier for C programmers to understand.


So...

Pascal is not Niklaus Wirth's Pascal but some vague pidgin extension(s) of it.
Whereas pointer is a specific C semantics, not a broader implication from C, 
nothing connected with the general English usage.  

Playing humpty dumpty arent we?