Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Antoon Pardon Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:54:25 +0200 Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <834b1cce-38dd-474c-8915-4ff1cd6b27ec@googlegroups.com> <06f2dedb-ce7a-4ca8-9fe8-8dba36f3d3ba@googlegroups.com> <76762c79-a85d-48f1-8132-5decd10ce4f1@googlegroups.com> <57874385$0$1501$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87shvccing.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87vb08xh3g.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87lh13xwnr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <578896B1.1030104@rece.vub.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 2ximhPnAtlfqAAxqEtqpKQaBYPRdBMgHnuRMI5369UhQ== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.015 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.97; '*S*': 0.00; 'received:134': 0.05; 'wrong,': 0.09; 'talks': 0.11; '2016': 0.16; 'exactly?': 0.16; 'received:ac.be': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'steep': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'language': 0.19; '>>>': 0.20; "aren't": 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'speakers': 0.24; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; '14,': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'actual': 0.28; "i'm": 0.30; 'received:be': 0.30; 'common': 0.33; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'someone': 0.38; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'where': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'jul': 0.72; 'inadequate': 0.84; 'pardon': 0.84; 'schreef': 0.84 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArYIAHYeUleGuA9G/2dsb2JhbABehFsBMa5ujXGGEgKCAAEBAQEBAWaEbQEBBCNKCxELGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgEPNhMGAgKIEQMXsU2MbQ1Eg1sBAQgCJYEBhSaETYJDgkmCNYJZAQSYETSBV4ckgy+BeokzhWmHaYdpVINwbAGKEQEBAQ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.8.0 In-Reply-To: <87lh13xwnr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <578896B1.1030104@rece.vub.ac.be> X-Mailman-Original-References: <834b1cce-38dd-474c-8915-4ff1cd6b27ec@googlegroups.com> <06f2dedb-ce7a-4ca8-9fe8-8dba36f3d3ba@googlegroups.com> <76762c79-a85d-48f1-8132-5decd10ce4f1@googlegroups.com> <57874385$0$1501$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87shvccing.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87vb08xh3g.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87lh13xwnr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:111461 Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa: > Ian Kelly : > >> On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" wrote: >>> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do >>> you use as a standard? >> Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard? >> >> I'm not interested in arguing over philosophy, so I won't. > Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for > language questions. But educated about what exactly? Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to indicate something is difficult to master, he is using it wrong, because actual steep learning curves indicate something can be mastered quickly. Now I suspect most people who talk about steep learning curves are educated, they just aren't educated about learning curves and so I think common usage among educated speakers is inadequate as a yard stick. -- Antoon Pardon