the global keyword:

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 20-06-16 om 16:53 schreef 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.

But being about name bindings and reference doesn't imply it is about
name references.

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

There is also not a rule of law that says you have to automatically introduce
semantic games into the discussion when someone else might have a point.

-- 
Antoon.