Re: Inner workings of this Python feature: Can a Python data structure reference itself?

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<rosuav@gmail.com>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.048
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 0.90; 'S': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'lines:': 0.09; 'paragraph,': 0.09; "they've": 0.09; 'cc:addr :python-list': 0.11; '10:59': 0.16; 'follow-up': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'observations': 0.16; 'reasonably': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'typos': 0.16; 'unexpectedly': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'basically': 0.19; 'saying': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'error': 0.23; 'tend': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'posts': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'statement': 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'along': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'post.': 0.31; 'trivial': 0.31; 'comment': 0.34; "can't": 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'subject:data': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'list': 0.37; 'clear': 0.37; 'fact': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'sure': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'read': 0.60; 'subject:Can': 0.60; 'took': 0.61; 'simply': 0.61; 'making': 0.63; 'skip:n 10': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'bothered': 0.68; 'nobody': 0.68; 'published': 0.71; 'subject:this': 0.83; '2015': 0.84; 'actually,': 0.84; 'glance': 0.84; 'to:none': 0.92; 'acknowledge': 0.93
DKIM-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=a46rBW2foexNSIfUTdI60GjcG2uo9HPk1DxL9ekrIMw=; b=esJL0fzNbFcWl9yeBCWYl/UtkKrnGHX8v/B0yqwMnH3SU6K2oNJYX6uQg3vfS7akwn HLEC2f17Ezt6WXydbkBdAFL2CICu1yh1wmCXzB+2mMEYoRynW8ysO5NnzDwFDhkGXAxq 2LfEzBhs7cUXb6191myRgN0hn5zZHPAFCslwlZvmIcwSznw/jyK5398zq01PZCZSX+57 2fXe30N32HSBEVxwW1vclLm0H0IqJIG/beWzGZpWGilur+07CtMYjTBCbFrASZxfNf5q 4WnOKxKRNo/fHxs+wX2B/kTZ0HfJQN3HxNlhv+nLXqDBjrHeK8ZclFS6+ULNj9KEoSBs sNHw==
MIME-Version	1.0
X-Received	by 10.42.43.199 with SMTP id y7mr4168368ice.12.1430658494980; Sun, 03 May 2015 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To	<69353f16-7c04-469d-b3ac-05fbe75667d2@googlegroups.com>
References	<387ac520-9da3-411a-a3b8-b326e1e8a2c0@googlegroups.com> <mailman.34.1430608657.12865.python-list@python.org> <69353f16-7c04-469d-b3ac-05fbe75667d2@googlegroups.com>
Date	Sun, 3 May 2015 23:08:14 +1000
Subject	Re: Inner workings of this Python feature: Can a Python data structure reference itself?
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc	"python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.20+
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.66.1430658498.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	15
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1430658498 news.xs4all.nl 2876 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44003
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:89868

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:59 PM, vasudevram <vasudevram@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re. statement of fact vs. hypotheses. While I'm not sure of your exact meaning in that paragraph, I understand the concept, and yes, I was not clear enough in phrasing that part. It should have read like something along these lines:
>
> Observations -> One or more hypotheses -> deductions -> one or more alternative conclusions.

I just took a glance at your blog post, and it's reasonably clear now.
(Though I tend to try to avoid making substantive edits to blog posts
once they've been published and read; a codicil, or at very least an
italicized comment saying "(Edit: Actually, blah blah blah.)", is
clearer. Of course, trivial edits like typos can be corrected - nobody
would be bothered by those unexpectedly changing.) Posts to the
newsgroup/mailing list basically can't be edited, so the normal way to
acknowledge an error or correction is simply a follow-up post.

ChrisA

Thread

csiph-web