On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:55:04AM -0400, Kevin Jacobs wrote: > [I'm just jumping into this thread -- please forgive me if my reply does not > make sense in the context of the past discussions on this thread -- I've > only had time to read part of the archive.] > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Oren Tirosh wrote: > > In C a pointer and a value are both "objects". But Python references are > > not objects. > > References are so transparent that you can treat them as 'instance > aliases'. > > > In a language where almost everything is an object they are a > > conspicous exception. > > What semantics do you propose for "reference objects"? No no no! I am not proposing anything like that. What I'm saying is that interfaces/categories/whateveryouwannacallit are more about references to objects than about the objects themselves and pointed out that references are not even Python objects. Two references to the same object may have very different expectations about what they are pointing to. I went a step further and decided to completely decouple it from the object: All the intelligence is in the category that makes observations about the object's form without requiring any change to the objects or types. Oren
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4