the global keyword:

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:29 pm, Random832 wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 08:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Bart didn't say anyone had defended it. He made an observation:
>> 
>> "that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to 'x'"
>> 
>> which is factually correct. And this does refer to the "ducks limp"
>> thread.
> 
> Except it doesn't. Because no-one on that thread made the claim that it
> is. There's absolutely nothing in the thread (except maybe earlier
> instances of him and you misrepresenting others' claims) about 'y' being
> a name reference to 'x', so there's nothing in that thread for it to
> reasonably refer to.

The thread is a discussion about name binding and references. And what do
you know, the hypothetical "name y is a reference to name x" is, amazingly,
about name binding and references! Hence the connection between the two.

You know, there's not actually a rule or law that says you have to
automatically take the contrary position to everything I say.




-- 
Steven