Understanding python's name binding

Question

I am trying to clarify for myself Python's rules for 'assigning' values to variables.

Is the following comparison between Python and C++ valid?

1. In C/C++ the statement int a=7 means, memory is allocated for an integer variable called a (the quantity on the LEFT of the = sign) and only then the value 7 is stored in it.

2. In Python the statement a=7 means, a nameless integer object with value 7 (the quantity on the RIGHT side of the =) is created first and stored somewhere in memory. Then the name a is bound to this object.

The output of the following C++ and Python programs seem to bear this out, but I would like some feedback whether I am right.

C++ produces different memory locations for a and b while a and b seem to refer to the same location in Python (going by the output of the id() function)

C++ code

#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(void)
{
  int a = 7;
  int b = a; 
  cout << &a <<  "  " << &b << endl; // a and b point to different locations in memory
  return 0;
}

Output: 0x7ffff843ecb8 0x7ffff843ecbc

Python: code

a = 7
b = a
print id(a), ' ' , id(b) # a and b seem to refer to the same location

Output: 23093448 23093448

Answer 1

Yes, you're basically correct. In Python, a variable name can be thought of as a binding to a value. This is one of those "a ha" moments people tend to experience when they truly start to grok (deeply understand) Python.

Assigning to a variable name in Python makes the name bind to a different value from what it currently was bound to (if indeed it was already bound), rather than changing the value it currently binds to:

a = 7   # Create 7, bind a to it.
        #     a -> 7

b = a   # Bind b to the thing a is currently bound to.
        #     a
        #      \
        #       *-> 7
        #      /
        #     b

a = 42  # Create 42, bind a to it, b still bound to 7.
        #     a -> 42
        #     b -> 7

I say "create" but that's not necessarily so - if a value already exists somewhere, it may be re-used.

Where the underlying data is immutable (cannot be changed), that usually makes Python look as if it's behaving identically to the way other languages do (C and C++ come to mind). That's because the 7 (the actual object that the names are bound to) cannot be changed.

But, for mutable data (same as using pointers in C or references in C++), people can sometimes be surprised because they don't realise that the value behind it is shared:

>>> a = [1,2,3]     # a -> [1,2,3]
>>> print(a)
[1, 2, 3]

>>> b = a           # a,b -> [1,2,3]
>>> print(b)
[1, 2, 3]

>>> a[1] = 42       # a,b -> [1,42,3]
>>> print(a) ; print(b)
[1, 42, 3]
[1, 42, 3]

You need to understand that a[1] = 42 is different to a = [1, 42, 3]. The latter is an assignment, which would result in a being re-bound to a different object, and therefore independent of b.

The former is simply changing the mutable data that both a and b are bound to, which is why it affects both.

There are ways to get independent copies of a mutable value, with things such as:

b = a[:]
b = [item for item in a]
b = list(a)

These will work to one level (b = a can be thought of as working to zero levels) meaning if the a list contains other mutable things, those will still be shared between a and b:

>>> a = [1, [2, 3, 4], 5]
>>> b = a[:]
>>> a[0] = 8             # This is independent.
>>> a[1][1] = 9          # This is still shared.
>>> print(a) ; print(b)  # Shared bit will 'leak' between a and b.
[8, [2, 9, 4], 5]
[1, [2, 9, 4], 5]

For a truly independent copy, you can use deepcopy, which will work down to as many levels as needed to separate the two objects.

Answer 2

In your example code, as "int" is a built-in type in C++, so the operator "=" could not be overloaded, but "=" doesn't always create new object, they could also reference to same object. The python object module is kind of like Java, most of the object is an reference but not a copy.

You can also try this:

a = 7
b = 7
print id(a), ' ' , id(b) 

it output the same result, as python will find both a and b point to same const variable