Call by binding [was Re: [Tutor] beginning to code]

[Antoon Pardon]

On 25-09-17 20:01, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 25-09-17 19:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> If by "identity" you mean the integer values returned by id(), then
>>> nope, you're still wrong - there is no mapping from identities to
>>> values. There is a mapping from name to object/value, and from an
>>> object, you can determine its identity. If you like, there's a mapping
>>> from values to identities, but not the other way around.
>>
>> I'm describing this at a conceptual level.
> 
> At what conceptual level are the identities an in-between state
> instead of being something you see from the object?
> 
>>> Unless, of course, you can find something in the Python documentation
>>> that supports this two-step indirection?
>>
>> The fact that the Python documentation describes its sematics differently
>> doesn't contradict that this is a useful model.
> 
> You need *some* support for your assertion that there are pointers,
> and you have absolutely none.

I think you have me confused with Marko Rauhamaa. He makes an assertion
about pointers. I don't.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.