lipska the kat <lipskathe...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> If, in a language, I find I am able to sayYou haven't discovered anything about types; what you have discovered is
> a = 1
> then later, in the same scope I can say
> a = "foo"
> then later again in the same scope I can say
> a = ([1,2,3], "xyz", True)
> then, and I may be missing something here, to me, that doesn't say
that Python name bindings are not variables.
In fact, Python doesn't have variables – not as C or Java programmers
The documentation unfortunately calls these references “variables” in
Any reference (with some very narrow specific exclusions, like ‘None’)
> We need to separate out the 'view' from the 'implementation' here.Those people are confused, then. Python is strongly typed: objects
> Most developers I know, if looking at the code and without the
> possibly dubious benefit of knowing that in Python 'everything is an
> object' would not call this 'strong typing'
always know their type, the type is always exact, and the type of an
object can't be changed.
This is always true regardless of whether the object is referred to
Python is dynamically typed: References (and hence names) don't have
> It is OK to to make (possibly erroneous) observations isn't it?One of our long-time regulars (Aahz, whom I haven't seen for a long
time, sadly) quipped that the best way to get correct information on
Usenet is not to ask a question, but to post incorrect information.
That's not a license for such behaviour, but an observation on its
I'd say that so long as you phrase your assertions to indicate the level
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.