A question on modification of a list via a function invocation

[Steve D'Aprano]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:08 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Steve D'Aprano <steve+python at pearwood.info> writes:
>>[quote]
>>The mistake they make is in the definition of
>>Figure 7: (Java) Defining a Dog pointer
>>Dog d;
>>itself. When you write that definition, you are defining a pointer to a Dog
>>object, not a Dog object itself.
>>[end quote]
>>Here Scott mixes up what the compiler does (creates a pointer to a Dog object,
>>and what the programmer's Java code does (creates a Dog).
> 
>   I have not the whole context in mind, and so I might get
>   something wrong here, but if
> 
> Dog d;
> 
>   is supposed to be interpreted as Java, then it neither
>   creates a pointer to a Dog object nor it creates a Dog.
> 
>   Instead, it declares an unitialized variable d.


Thank you Stefan, your correction is noted. I'm not a Java expert like Scott,
and I failed to notice the distinction between:

    Dog d;

and

    Dog d = new Dog();

so I failed to realise that of course d has no value at all in Scott's example.




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