Variable binding: (re-) assignment, argument passing, `let`, scope

[Vic]

@yuyichao

Still wrong.[…]

You are right – and not just based on the recent replies you wrote, but I was simply making no sense not much sense with that particular region of reply: “Then you misunderstood what I believe true and what not…” here , I’ve striken it out and edited – please read if you want.

Perhaps because of that, my concept of “memory location” for values seemed inconsistent to you. Other than that, I don’t see where I ever changed my definition for it.

You started as x = 2 in REPL overwriting a “value-location” with 2, which is simply not something that ever happen in this case.

True (or…really? ever? ) but let’s not dig into what I wrote so many replies ago . I’ve learnt many things by now, I don’t believe everything I wrote there anymore.

I think you’ll be pleased to see how my interpretations read now: Variable binding: (re-) assignment, argument passing, `let`, scope

@yuyichao

That due respect should include considering why something that seems wrong could be right rather than straight denying the official definition.

Believe me, I did a lot of consideration (all these replies took me an incredible amount of time). If you noticed, I actually tried to quote and follow official definitions from documentation whenever I could.
You often did not give reference, did not explain in detail, and I did not know you: why would I take your words as “official definition”?
(And such situations is when one should question and not believe blindly)

@yuyichao

So I can see now what @yuyichao might have meant when he was saying that an instruction like x=100 may or may not result in storing 100 at some place in memory. It really depends on the other instructions next to x=100 , given as a block or not, and context.

That is exactly what I said.

yuyichao:

The simplest example is that if you write x = 1; x = 2; in a local scope I can guarantee you that the 1 will not appear in the compiled code.

Indeed. I was actually not thinking at all about compiler optimizations. I had in mind compiler executing my instructions word for word, as if one at a time in REPL.
Also, I had taken (long ago) an intro C course. There, teacher told us that re-assignment literally meant re-writing the memory location with a diff value, and never told us that “it depends, may or may not” (so he lied to me then because he didn’t mention possible optimizations )

The only way I can think of (and tried) to help you resolve these issues is to avoid talking about your "value-location"s at all. If you want to keep it, I really have no idea how to build a consistent picture with that.

I see how you wanted to protect me against extra confusion( Edit: thanks for that intention). But with a person like me, just “don’t” doesn’t work well… I needed to know “Why”… I think now I understand.