A question on modification of a list via a function invocation

[Steve D'Aprano]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:59 am, Rustom Mody wrote:

> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:50:39 PM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 01:11 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> > Simply put: pythonistas have no coherent/consistent sense of what python
>> > values are. And the endless parameter-passing-nomenclature arguments are
>> > just the fallout of that.
>> 
>> This is not a dispute unique to the Python community. Similar arguments take
>> place in the Java and Ruby communities, and I daresay many others.
> 
> Well good to know we agree on this [I would add lisp to this list since its
> the progenitor of this model]
> 
> And it is a primary factor for the desirability of transcending the imperative
> paradigm

This is completely unrelated to the imperative paradigm.

You just said it yourself: the question of function calling conventions applies
to functional languages like Lisp as well. It even applies to purely functional
languages like Haskell:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/184586/devising-test-of-haskells-value-reference-semantics


I especially love that one of the top-rated answers says that Haskell
simultaneously:

- doesn't have references;
- therefore Haskell is call-by-value;
- except that it actually has call-by-reference semantics;
- except that it is actually call-by-name;
- except that it is actually call-by-need.


The imperative paradigm has nothing to do with this.




-- 
Steve
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.