Re: why cannot assign to function call

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:49:02 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote:

Steven D'Aprano <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The only tricky thing is that items 1, 2 and 3 can be inside two
different boxes at the same time. There's no obvious real world analogy
to that without the boxes being nested. This ability for objects to be
in two places at once (or even to be inside themselves!) is one of the
few reasons why Python's use of references in the implementation needs
to be mentioned.

Ahh. So it /does/ need to be mentioned after all.

Only in the sense that the behaviour of *real world* objects don't
entirely match the behaviour of Python objects. If you just accept that
Python objects can be in two places at once, an unintuitive concept I
accept but hardly difficult to grasp, then you don't need to mention
references.

(Of course, as a purely practical matter, the English language makes it
difficult to avoid the word "reference" entirely. That's not my
intention.)



But you're wrong:
it's not an implementation detail: it's an essential part of the
language semantics.

Er, pardon me, but you yourself suggested that one could implement Python
without using references to objects, "like keeping lists of clones, and
magically updating all the clones whenever one us mutated. That may even
be a valid implementation for a distributed Python".

Like you suggested, it would be a seriously rotten model for standard
Python, but it is possible. The language semantics specifies the
*behaviour*, not the *mechanism* required to implement that behaviour.



A better analogy. The objects are scattered across the floor. No
object is contained in another. However, we have a plentiful supply of
bits of string, each of which is tied to a Teflon-covered paperweight at
one end and has a blob of Blu-Tack on the other. Instead of putting
something in a box directly, what we do is grab a piece of string, stick
the Blu-Tack to the thing, and put the paperweight in the box.

Not a bad analogy. I like it. But it still fails.

Why can't I stick the paperweight in the box *before* attaching the Blu-
Tack to something else, and then forget about attaching the Blu-Tack?
There's nothing in your model to prevent dangling pointers, except hand-
waving "it doesn't work like that".

I assume the string is made of Teflon, otherwise I could stick the Blu-
Tack to another piece of string. By the same token, the floor needs to be
Teflon too.

Why can't I grab the string by the end with the Blu-Tack and follow it
backwards to find out where the paperweight is? I obviously know how to
handle the end, because according to your model I'm sticking it to other
objects. I suppose maybe there's a robot that does that Blu-Tack sticking
for me, I just point to the object and say "That one!" and it happens.
The string itself is invisible except to radar, which the robot has, and
I don't. That way I can't follow the string backwards to find out where
the paperweight is. Hmmm. This model is getting awfully complicated:
Teflon string, Teflon paperweights, Blu-Tack, *and* a robot (presumably
Teflon as well), none of which are visible to Python code, as well as
objects which are.



This
way, we can stick several bits of string to the same object and put the
paperweights in different boxes. Indeed, nothing stops us sticking two
bits of string to a box, and putting both paperweights inside that same
box. But fitting a box into itself twice requires origami skills that
frighten me.

Ah, you've obviously never studied origami under Sensei Ping of the Clan
of the Pointed Stick!


The Teflon stops the Blu-Tack from sticking to the paperweights, 'cos
you're not allowed to do that.

There's a daemon who comes around periodically and cleans up the mess of
paperweights which aren't in boxes, and tidies away things which don't
have any string stuck to them any more,

So there's a brief moment between creating the object and sticking the
Blu-Tack on it when the daemon might take the object and the string away?
No, I guess not, that's another thing I just have to take on faith... the
daemon knows not to touch anything until the robot has finished with it.

Can I tie two pieces of string together, stop the daemon from disposing
of them? Apparently not.

Objects in two places at one time isn't sounding that weird any more.

I actually do like your model, despite poking holes in it. As a model for
what CPython is doing under the hood, it pretty good.

But it's not a model for what a Python programmer does when writing
Python code. There's no action equivalent to "attach blob of Blu-Tack to
object", no action equivalent to "put the paperweight in the box". The
robot does that when you point to an object and say "put that inside the
box". The programmer doesn't do these things, he says "put that object in
the box" and the robot attaches the Blu-Tack and moves the paperweight.
The strings and paperweights and Blu-Tack are invisible and intangible to
the programmer, *and* they are an implementation detail: as you put it,
we could implement Python using clones of objects magically kept in sync,
no string required.



--
Steven
.

Relevant Pages

  • TOC of Python Cookbook now online (was Re: author index for Python Cookbook 2?)
    ... Processing a String One Character at a Time ... Finding a File on the Python Search Path ... Constructing Lists with List Comprehensions ... Looping over Items and Their Indices in a Sequence ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Objektrepr=E4sentation_in_einem_Python?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?-In
    ... Python 1.4 hat zwar ein uniformes Typsystem, Exemplare sind aber nur nur eine Art von Python-Objekt, will sagen, nicht jedes Ding hat eine Klasse. ... Called when an attribute lookup has not found the attribute in the usual places (i.e. it is not an instance attribute nor is it found in the class tree for self). ... Das einzige Element von None könnte null sein, Integer und String sind klar. ...
    (de.comp.lang.java)
  • Re: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Objektrepr=E4sentation_in_einem_Python?= =?ISO-8859-15?Q?-In
    ... Exemplare von Klassen. ... Einzig vom Anwender definierte Klassen können Exemplare haben. ... wirklichen Grund sich an die Hierarchie von Python halten zu müssen. ... Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, dann ist es in Python möglich einem String eine neue Funktion zu geben, vielleicht sogar eine alte zu ersetzen. ...
    (de.comp.lang.java)
  • Re: Unrecognized escape sequences in string literals
    ... the string literal doesn't change this basic truth. ... are left in the string unchanged, i.e., the backslash ... expect that if Python had always behaved the way that C++ ... It's a legal escape sequence that maps to ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: python coding contest
    ... Claudio Grondi wrote: ... Before that I want to thank the originators of the contest and especially the participants for providing insight into the techniques they have used. ... that it would be a nice thing to have in Python a function able to convert values from binary string to an integer representation as in my eyes both in case of long integer values are more or less the same thing/object. ...
    (comp.lang.python)