> Yes, pointer’s are themselves passed by value (no pointers to pointers) due to garbage collection where the ability to directly alter them would cause crashes (like basically every C++ program does if you spend enough time fuzzing it).
I'm going to be frank, you're arguing both sides here which is very frustrating. You've said that Python is pass-by-reference, that it passes references, and now that it is pass-by-value (I think that's what you're trying to say). So do you believe that Python is pass-by-reference or not? If you believe it is, and if mine and moonchild's functions demonstrating the opposite aren't persuasive, here's the Python FAQ itself saying that it is not, in fact, pass-by-reference:
> Remember that arguments are passed by assignment in Python. Since assignment just creates references to objects, there’s no alias between an argument name in the caller and callee, and so no call-by-reference per se.
> Yes, pointer’s are themselves passed by value (no pointers to pointers) due to garbage collection where the ability to directly alter them would cause crashes (like basically every C++ program does if you spend enough time fuzzing it).
I'm going to be frank, you're arguing both sides here which is very frustrating. You've said that Python is pass-by-reference, that it passes references, and now that it is pass-by-value (I think that's what you're trying to say). So do you believe that Python is pass-by-reference or not? If you believe it is, and if mine and moonchild's functions demonstrating the opposite aren't persuasive, here's the Python FAQ itself saying that it is not, in fact, pass-by-reference:
https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programming.html#how-do-i-writ...
> Remember that arguments are passed by assignment in Python. Since assignment just creates references to objects, there’s no alias between an argument name in the caller and callee, and so no call-by-reference per se.