Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #21634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-15 00:34 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-18 18:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 00:34 +0100
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 23:54 +0000
Re: Python is readable Tony the Tiger <tony@tiger.invalid> - 2012-03-14 19:18 -0500
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 11:27 +1100
Re: Python is readable Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 23:23 -0700
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 11:44 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 21:50 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 22:47 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:59 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:21 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-15 23:31 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:38 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 00:16 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 00:33 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 00:50 +1100
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-15 17:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:16 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:29 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:37 +0100
Re: Python is readable Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-15 11:14 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:27 +1100
Re: Python is readable Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-15 11:44 -0400
Re: Python is readable Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 03:01 +1100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 17:41 +0000
Re: Python is readable Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-03-15 12:14 +0100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:48 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 14:06 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:19 +0100
Re: Python is readable Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2012-03-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:55 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:08 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 20:40 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 16:12 -0600
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 09:35 +1100
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:00 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 00:46 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 23:58 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 12:41 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 10:57 +1100
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 15:13 +0000
Re: Python is readable Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 21:43 +0200
Re: Python is readable Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:17 +1100
Re: Python is readable Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-15 14:23 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 14:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 16:17 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 00:32 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 03:55 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:10 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:48 +0000
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 17:39 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 22:22 +0100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 20:59 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 08:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 17:04 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:15 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 11:57 +0000
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-18 11:42 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 01:36 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:34 +0100
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 16:56 +1100
Re: Python is readable MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-03-31 18:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:48 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 16:05 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:14 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-15 23:52 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 14:12 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:36 +0100
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 12:50 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 13:03 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:28 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 17:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 18:50 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 19:35 +0000
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-16 20:04 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 12:07 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+usenet@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 02:05 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 13:15 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-21 00:57 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2012-03-16 16:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2012-03-16 13:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 07:59 +1100
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-17 01:09 -0400
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-19 11:26 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 11:51 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-19 12:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 14:38 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 21:23 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 01:46 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:44 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 15:27 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-21 00:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-03-15 16:41 +0100
Re: Python is readable Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-16 09:30 +0000
Re: Python is readable John Ladasky <ladasky@my-deja.com> - 2012-03-18 14:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 09:02 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 01:23 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 15:33 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 13:37 +0000
Re: Python is readable Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-20 12:20 +0000
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 20:15 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com> - 2012-03-18 21:14 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 12:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-20 17:48 +0000
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-20 14:09 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 15:28 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 00:22 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 18:28 -0700
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-21 13:28 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 19:44 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 15:16 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 21:58 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:40 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 23:52 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 17:59 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com> - 2012-03-21 00:16 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 19:15 +1100
Re: Re: Python is readable Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-03-21 11:22 -0500
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 09:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 14:06 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 18:35 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 08:56 +0000
Re: Python is readable (OT) Jon Clements <joncle@googlemail.com> - 2012-03-22 04:18 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 14:26 -0400
Re: Python is readable Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-29 13:44 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 14:37 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 01:42 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 03:36 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 00:38 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 10:47 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 09:46 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 03:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 14:15 -0400
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-30 20:30 +0000
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 20:38 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 05:29 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 15:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 07:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 22:07 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 08:06 +1000
Re: Python is readable Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2012-03-30 16:51 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 16:58 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 08:45 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-31 00:03 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 19:05 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 10:43 -0400
Re: Python is readable rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-01 21:01 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 23:44 -0700
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-30 16:40 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 00:27 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:08 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:17 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 10:29 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 09:12 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 17:44 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 19:42 -0700
Re: Python is readable rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 21:16 -0700
Re: Python is readable MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-03-23 04:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 23:58 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:20 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:33 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:21 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 15:33 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:48 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:49 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 17:54 -0700
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 17:25 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-31 09:59 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 00:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-20 16:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 00:01 +0000
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 17:15 +1100
Re: Python is readable Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 13:51 -0400
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 20:54 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 02:03 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 01:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 02:16 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:55 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:25 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 17:58 +0100
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-16 17:01 +0000
Re: Python is readable alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-03-18 18:19 +0000
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.732.1331928317.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21772 |
> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing it? > Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar? He provided common examples and reference links. Seems like a pretty reasonable way of trying to prove a point. If you don't like reference links, what would convince you that the point was correct? I have not seen any counter examples or counter references on your behalf... Ramit Ramit Prasad | JPMorgan Chase Investment Bank | Currencies Technology 712 Main Street | Houston, TX 77002 work phone: 713 - 216 - 5423 -- This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 21:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f64fa18$0$1392$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21774 |
On 3/16/2012 21:04, Prasad, Ramit wrote: >> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing it? >> Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking > the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar? > > > He provided common examples and reference links. Seems like a pretty > reasonable way of trying to prove a point. If you don't like reference > links, what would convince you that the point was correct? I have > not seen any counter examples or counter references on your behalf... He's referring to this "rule": "A colon should not precede a list unless it follows a complete sentence; however, the colon is a style choice that some publications allow." http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f6532e7$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21832 |
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:54:40 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 21:04, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
>>> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing
>>> it? Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking
>> the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar?
>>
>>
>> He provided common examples and reference links. Seems like a pretty
>> reasonable way of trying to prove a point. If you don't like reference
>> links, what would convince you that the point was correct? I have not
>> seen any counter examples or counter references on your behalf...
>
> He's referring to this "rule":
> "A colon should not precede a list unless it follows a complete
> sentence; however, the colon is a style choice that some publications
> allow."
> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp
That is an invented prescriptivist rule and not based on English grammar
as it actually is used by native English speakers. It is *bullshit*. Even
the author of that page breaks it. Immediately following the above
prohibition, she follows it with the sentence fragment:
"Examples:"
and then a list -- exactly what she says you may not do.
People *do* precede lists by a colon following a sentence fragment. This
is unremarkable English grammar, with only a tiny number of arse-plugged
prescriptivists finding anything to complain about it, and even they
break their own bullshit made-up so-called rule.
The vast majority of English speakers write things like:
TO DO:
- mow the lawn
- wash the car
- take kids to the zoo
- write book on grammar
and there is nothing wrong with doing so.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 12:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.770.1332032860.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21840 |
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > The vast majority of English speakers write things like: > > TO DO: And the vast majority of programmers leave out the space, even in non-code. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+usenet@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f6542f1$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21841 |
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:07:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >> The vast majority of English speakers write things like: >> >> TO DO: > > And the vast majority of programmers leave out the space, even in > non-code. I'm not sure if you're making a point there, or just a witty observation, but for the record I would accept dictionaries adding "todo" as a jargon entry. I don't think it is widespread enough to count as a regular word, but if we can have "another", "anywhere", "nowhere" and "pocketbook", I don't see why we might not someday have "todo". -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 13:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.772.1332036913.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21847 |
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+usenet@pearwood.info> wrote: > I'm not sure if you're making a point there, or just a witty observation, > but for the record I would accept dictionaries adding "todo" as a jargon > entry. I don't think it is widespread enough to count as a regular word, > but if we can have "another", "anywhere", "nowhere" and "pocketbook", I > don't see why we might not someday have "todo". A bit of both. My point is: The jargon that is developed in specific domains (such as TODO, and the P-convention among Lispers, and so on) often ends up used outside it. Once people not associated with the original domain are using that jargon, it can be safely declared to be part of the language. TODO mightn't be there quite yet, but I agree, it's highly likely to be dictionarified (is THAT a word?) before long. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-21 00:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f69195d$0$1388$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21840 |
On 3/18/2012 1:57, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On 3/16/2012 21:04, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
>>>> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing
>>>> it? Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking
>>> the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar?
>>>
>>>
>>> He provided common examples and reference links. Seems like a pretty
>>> reasonable way of trying to prove a point. If you don't like reference
>>> links, what would convince you that the point was correct? I have not
>>> seen any counter examples or counter references on your behalf...
>>
>> He's referring to this "rule":
>> "A colon should not precede a list unless it follows a complete
>> sentence; however, the colon is a style choice that some publications
>> allow."
>> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp
>
>
> That is an invented prescriptivist rule and not based on English grammar
> as it actually is used by native English speakers. It is *bullshit*. Even
> the author of that page breaks it. Immediately following the above
> prohibition, she follows it with the sentence fragment:
>
> "Examples:"
>
> and then a list -- exactly what she says you may not do.
I never said that rule is acceptable. I agree with you on that.
> People *do* precede lists by a colon following a sentence fragment. This
> is unremarkable English grammar, with only a tiny number of arse-plugged
> prescriptivists finding anything to complain about it, and even they
> break their own bullshit made-up so-called rule.
>
> The vast majority of English speakers write things like:
>
> TO DO:
> - mow the lawn
> - wash the car
> - take kids to the zoo
> - write book on grammar
>
> and there is nothing wrong with doing so.
That's perfectly acceptable.
Robert Kern put it very well in his post:
"don't use a colon to separate a transitive verb from its objects".
You can't say
TO DO
- mow the lawn
- ...
because "TO DO mow the lawn" doesn't "flow".
But why should we break a sentence when there's no need to do so?
Why should you write
The matrix:
....
is equal to....
Why the colon? Why break the flow of a sentence without reason?
I would generalize Robert Kern's rule a little:
"don't put a colon into a sentence which is fine already".
Example:
You should
- mow the lawn
- do the dishes
- walk the dog
That's perfectly fine. Commas are conveniently omitted.
As a side note, titles of movies, newspapers etc... don't follow common
rules. Articles may be omitted, verbs may be missing, etc... They're
just titles.
Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 16:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jk0666$ad3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #21770 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: > >> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> >> wrote: >>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who >>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own >>> fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the >>> ones who apply the grammatical rules used by people in real life. You >>> know the ones: linguists. My mistake. >> >> I am not pedantic. You are wrong. > > > Whether you like it or not, it simply is a fact that in English (I won't > speak for other languages) people use colons without the first clause > *necessarily* being a complete sentence. They write things like this: > > Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Come to think of it, just about every "serious" book title works this way. Mel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.735.1331931088.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21768 |
Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, >> who insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in >> their own fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the >> other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules used by >> people in real life. You know the ones: linguists. My mistake. > > I am not pedantic. You are wrong. > When saying somebody is wrong, you really should back it up with references (wiki, dictionary, etc.). At this point, if I had to decide between Steven and you, I'd go with Steven. Of course, it doesn't hurt that everything he has said matches with my experience on the topic. ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 07:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.737.1331931561.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21768 |
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Neil Cerutti wrote: >> >> I am not pedantic. You are wrong. >> > > When saying somebody is wrong, you really should back it up with references > (wiki, dictionary, etc.). I interpret this simply as a witty statement, one that can be thrown into any argument that has descended into pure pedantry. As such, it needs no backing, and is completely on topic for this thread (if not for python-list itself). Personally, I find it amusing. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 01:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.750.1331960964.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21750 |
On 3/16/2012 9:08 AM, Neil Cerutti wrote: > A grammarian always uses complete sentence before a colon, even > when introducing a list. The Chicago Manual of Style*, 13th edition, says "The colon is used to mark a discontinuity of grammatical construction greater than that indicated by the semicolon and less than that indicated by the period." While most of the examples in that section have what would be a complete sentence before the colon, not all do. Not in that section is this, from the Table of Contents: "Documentation: References, Notes, and Bibliographies". Here are a couple more from their Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data: "Rev. ed. of: A manual of style." and "Bibliography: p.". And in letters: "To:", "From:", and "Date:" *A major style guide for general American writing and publication: used by some as the 'Bible'. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9sojehFi09U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21798 |
On 2012-03-17, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: > On 3/16/2012 9:08 AM, Neil Cerutti wrote: > >> A grammarian always uses complete sentence before a colon, even >> when introducing a list. > > The Chicago Manual of Style*, 13th edition, says "The colon is > used to mark a discontinuity of grammatical construction > greater than that indicated by the semicolon and less than that > indicated by the period." > > While most of the examples in that section have what would be a > complete sentence before the colon, not all do. Not in that > section is this, from the Table of Contents: "Documentation: > References, Notes, and Bibliographies". Here are a couple more > from their Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data: > "Rev. ed. of: A manual of style." and "Bibliography: p.". And > in letters: "To:", "From:", and "Date:" > > *A major style guide for general American writing and > publication: used by some as the 'Bible'. Thanks for the discussion and corrections. My apologies to Steven for pushing my apparnetly overly narrow view. There are plenty of valid use cases for a colon without an independent clause. -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 11:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f671db2$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21887 |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:26:10 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: [...] >> *A major style guide for general American writing and publication: used >> by some as the 'Bible'. > > Thanks for the discussion and corrections. My apologies to Steven for > pushing my apparnetly overly narrow view. There are plenty of valid use > cases for a colon without an independent clause. No apology necessary, I like a good argument :) http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm One observation that amuses me though... it seems to me that the widespread practice of people writing colons following sentence fragments isn't sufficient to convince you that this is grammatical, but a self- declared authority prescribing it as allowed is. That makes you a grammar prescriptivist :) We're-all-a-little-bit-prescriptivists-when-it-comes-to-grammar-ly y'rs, -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9sooi3F682U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21891 |
On 2012-03-19, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:26:10 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: > [...] >>> *A major style guide for general American writing and >>> publication: used by some as the 'Bible'. >> >> Thanks for the discussion and corrections. My apologies to >> Steven for pushing my apparnetly overly narrow view. There are >> plenty of valid use cases for a colon without an independent >> clause. > > No apology necessary, I like a good argument :) > > http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm > > One observation that amuses me though... it seems to me that > the widespread practice of people writing colons following > sentence fragments isn't sufficient to convince you that this > is grammatical, but a self- declared authority prescribing it > as allowed is. That makes you a grammar prescriptivist :) There are certain uses of colon that are worse than others, in my mind. It's a matter of taste, and that's going to be impossible to find references for. My birthday cake had three kinds of frosting: chocolate, vanilla and raspberry. I checked only one reference before diving in (www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/), but it's a guide that concentrates on presenting yourself well through widely acceptable grammar. It's not an exhaustive taxonomy of all valid usages. So I looked in the wrong place. I still think sentence fragments before a colon introducing a list often looks bad, and may be taken for an error. But it doesn't always look bad, and I didn't think about it enough. > We're-all-a-little-bit-prescriptivists-when-it-comes-to-grammar-ly y'rs, Yep: my clever usage is another's abomination. -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 14:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.811.1332167925.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21893 |
On 3/19/12 12:53 PM, Neil Cerutti wrote: > I still think sentence fragments before a colon introducing a > list often looks bad, and may be taken for an error. But it > doesn't always look bad, and I didn't think about it enough. One of my English teachers suggested a rule that seems to accord (descriptively) with the uses the "look good" and "look bad" to me: don't use a colon to separate a transitive verb from its objects. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 21:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f64f2d8$0$1393$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21749 |
On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical > about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic English. In another post you wrote "Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules used by people in real life. You know the ones: linguists." Then how do you know that there's nothing ungrammatical about "If you can: take the bus" if people don't use it? Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f653e5c$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21831 |
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:23:45 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical >> about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic >> English. > > In another post you wrote > "Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who apply the > grammatical rules used by people in real life. You know the ones: > linguists." > > Then how do you know that there's nothing ungrammatical about "If you > can: take the bus" if people don't use it? Who says it is ungrammatical? If the list (a list of one item, but still a list) was labelled as a list like this: If you can: (1) take the bus. or if the items were offset like this: If you can: - take the bus. (or similar) I wouldn't hesitate to say it was following the same form as this: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to: - take the bus ... - do this - do that - etc. even though in English we don't usually treat a list of one item as a list. That would make it unidiomatic but grammatically valid. But written in line, as you do, I'm not entirely sure. It is more of a grey area. It is not explicitly written as a list of items, so a colon seems a bit too "heavy" and I would prefer to write: If you can, take the bus. That flows better and is more idiomatic. On balance, I think it *is* grammatical but only on a technicality (a little like the (in)famous "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" sentence), but poorly written and not idiomatic. Natural languages frequently have many sentences which obey the grammatical rules and yet nobody uses that *specific* sentence, either because they feel clumsy, or because they are semantically meaningless, e.g. "hairless fears deconstruct lustily". But the problem with "If you can: take the bus" is not the colon or the initial sentence fragment. It is the fact that it introduces a list of a single item in a form that doesn't look like a list of items. This, for example, reads much more naturally: "If you can: take the bus to work every day; work hard for an unappreciative boss; give up 40% of your pay in taxes for a war you disagree with; use the rest to support a family that despises you; remind yourself that you're still happier than 90% of the people who have every lived." -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f671c36$0$1386$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21844 |
On 3/18/2012 2:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:23:45 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > >> On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical >>> about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic >>> English. >> >> In another post you wrote >> "Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who apply the >> grammatical rules used by people in real life. You know the ones: >> linguists." >> >> Then how do you know that there's nothing ungrammatical about "If you >> can: take the bus" if people don't use it? > > Who says it is ungrammatical? You did. You're not a prescriptivist, thus you're probably a descriptivist. Beeing a descriptivist, you must agree on the fact that "If ...: do this" is ungrammatical, because nobody says that. On the other hand, a prescriptivist might accept that. BTW, I asked a few teachers of English whether "If ...: do this" is correct or not and they, surprisingly, said "no". Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 15:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f67506b$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21890 |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:44:53 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/18/2012 2:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:23:45 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>>> A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical >>>> about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic >>>> English. >>> >>> In another post you wrote >>> "Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who apply the >>> grammatical rules used by people in real life. You know the ones: >>> linguists." >>> >>> Then how do you know that there's nothing ungrammatical about "If you >>> can: take the bus" if people don't use it? >> >> Who says it is ungrammatical? > > You did. > You're not a prescriptivist, thus you're probably a descriptivist. > Beeing a descriptivist, you must agree on the fact that > "If ...: do this" > is ungrammatical, because nobody says that. I believe that you are misunderstanding the descriptivist position. There are many sentences which are never said, or perhaps only said once. Most non-trivial spoken or written sentences are unique. That doesn't make them wrong or erroneous because "nobody says them". Nobody says "hesitant teapots sleep artistically". It's a meaningless sentence, but it is grammatically correct: it obeys the same grammatical rule as "hungry dogs howl pitifully" or "devote saints suffer silently": ADJECTIVE NOUN VERB ADVERB. This pattern is common in English: nearly everyone uses it, and therefore any sentence matching the pattern is *grammatically* correct for English even if it is semantically meaningless. On the other hand, "pitifully dogs hungry howl" is incorrect because virtually no English speaker writes sentences using the rule ADVERB NOUN ADJECTIVE VERB, and on such rare times that somebody does, people will notice and declare that it is "wrong" or "doesn't make sense", or otherwise correct it. In my opinion, "If ...: do this" matches a grammatical pattern which I see very frequently. I've already given my reasons for this. > On the other hand, a > prescriptivist might accept that. BTW, I asked a few teachers of English > whether "If ...: do this" is correct or not and they, surprisingly, said > "no". What matters is not the authorities who say something is right or wrong, but their reasons for doing so. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-21 00:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f69125e$0$1380$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21902 |
On 3/19/2012 16:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I believe that you are misunderstanding the descriptivist position. There > are many sentences which are never said, or perhaps only said once. Most > non-trivial spoken or written sentences are unique. That doesn't make > them wrong or erroneous because "nobody says them". > > Nobody says "hesitant teapots sleep artistically". Let's not mix syntax with semantics. "If I'm ok: I'll go." represents all the possible sentences where the if-clause and the then-clause are separated by a colon. I believe that none of those are grammatically correct. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web