I'm wrong or Will we fix the ducks limp?
On 09/06/2016 12:19, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 09-06-16 om 12:53 schreef BartC:
>> On 09/06/2016 10:46, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> Op 09-06-16 om 09:36 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>>>> Your example demonstrates object mutation, not assignment.
>>> Generally assignment and mutation don't contradict each other.
>>> So IMO the cause is the same, a mutation. In some languages you
>>> can mutate your variable through an assignment and in others you
>> I think this is what is confusing you.
>> Mutation is like repairing or customising my car.
>> Full assignment is like buying a new car.
> I think you are confused. Full assignment of C struct or
> Pascal record is the same as mutating all individual
> attributes. You don't get a new record/instance as in
> Python. You replace the value of the attributes with
> something else.
> As far a language semantics are concerned, you get the
> (new) car at scope entry, all assigments later are
> You may think of assignment as like buying a new car,
> that is not how the semantics of languages like pascal
> and C are defined.
Static languages like C and Pascal don't make for a good comparison. C
is just too low level: anything is possible so can be twisted any way. A
bit like assembly.
C variables have a fixed type, which you can't change by assignment (so
a Ford can't change to a different marque). But being low-level,
assignment in C is just copying N bytes from A to B. Which is also what
happens when, instead of copying a whole struct, you mutate all of it by
assigning the fields one by one.
Python assignments are bit more sophisticated, and there are real
differences between full assignment (where a variable ends up with a
different object reference) and mutation (where it might be the same,
but modified, object).