Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #56907 > unrolled thread

Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:44 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-17 10:47 +1100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 09:06 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 16:53 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:39 -0500
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:41 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:40 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:44 +1100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 09:11 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 14:19 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-10-22 03:34 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:43 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:42 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 22:35 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-23 15:13 +0200
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-24 22:02 +0200
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 15:13 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 10:58 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 11:49 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-29 12:37 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-29 14:08 +0000
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-29 13:00 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-30 10:22 +0000
                  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:48 -0700
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-31 08:41 +0000
                      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-31 21:41 -0700
                        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 05:41 +0000
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:50 -0700
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-02 03:52 +0000
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:46 -0800
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2013-11-02 18:22 +0000
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-03 05:17 +0000
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 10:45 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:50 -0800
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 19:49 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 09:11 +1100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 09:38 +0100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 20:07 +1100
                              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 10:38 +0100
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-02 18:36 +0000
                        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-01 13:50 +0100
                          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:51 -0700
                            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-02 12:15 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:53 +0100
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-11-02 20:49 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 15:17 +1100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2013-10-29 19:08 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:44 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 11:57 -0700
      Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 16:05 -0400
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-25 16:44 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 01:19 +0100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:58 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 16:38 +0100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:36 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 11:25 +1100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 20:35 -0400
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:00 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 02:40 +0000
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 05:15 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-27 00:02 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:07 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:25 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:43 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:05 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 17:24 +0000
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:33 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 09:15 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:45 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 14:23 +0000
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 22:09 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 13:37 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 18:45 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:56 +1100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:29 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 22:04 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:59 -0700
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:40 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700
                  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-28 21:03 -0700
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-29 17:22 +1100
                      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:53 -0700
                      OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 07:00 +0000
                        Re: OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 19:19 +1100
                    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-29 08:45 -0400
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#57590 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:44:45 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>> The default
>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>> 
>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
> 
> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
> their obnoxious noisiness.

There are people here who hate Google Groups but simply don't chime in. 
I'm one of them. Perhaps I should.

There are also many people who have a blanket "ignore" switch on anything 
coming from GG, not out of any personal vendetta against you, but simply 
out of self-defence. They don't say anything simply because they don't 
see the posts.


> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
> little care it is usable without annoying anyone 

This is true, and thank you for taking that care, that is really 
appreciated.

But perhaps you should consider that although GG works for you, it 
doesn't work for many people who don't take that care. So far Peter 
Cacioppi is one of those people. He has shown no inclination that he is 
willing to take the care to communicate well according to the community 
standards here, and he has shown a distressing tendency towards snarky, 
arrogant responses to polite requests to fix his posts.


> except a few drooling
> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors GG
> for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by the
> anti-GG goon squad.

Your personal attacks are not appreciated. Why can you not accept that 
people who post using GG's defaults cause pain and difficulty to many -- 
probably the great majority -- of readers who use either the mailing list 
or the news group to read this list? Don't you think that they are 
entitled to complain when people repeatedly post double-spaced, hard to 
read messages, or set the reply address wrongly, or include no context or 
attributes, or all of the above at once?

Do you really intend to say that we have no right to complain about how 
difficult Google Groups makes it for us?



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57599 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:10:16 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Your personal attacks are not appreciated. Why can you not accept that 
> people who post using GG's defaults cause pain and difficulty to many -- 
> probably the great majority -- of readers who use either the mailing list 
> or the news group to read this list? Don't you think that they are 
> entitled to complain when people repeatedly post double-spaced, hard to 
> read messages, or set the reply address wrongly, or include no context or 
> attributes, or all of the above at once?
> 
> 
> Do you really intend to say that we have no right to complain about how 
> difficult Google Groups makes it for us?

I think you are mixing up cause and effect, symptom and disease, Steven.

The symptoms are
1. Double spaced responses
2. Non/improper attribution
3. Generally idiotic behavior

The 'disease' is:

Google-groups is current technology whereas newsgroups/feeds etc is pre-www technology.

By fairly straightforward statistics -- you should know given the newest module in python 3.4 <wink> -- the probability of idiotic behavior in a bunch of children is going to be significantly higher than the same in a bunch of adults.

Google-groups consist of the 'children-population' (so to speak); newsgroups etc consist of the adult population with some exceptions.

The appropriate way of dealing with children is not to say "Dont be children!" but to say "This kind of behavior is unacceptable out here"

I feel the biggest negative consequence of the anti-GG rhetoric is that the bigger issue -- idiotic behavior -- is left unaddressed in favor of very minor local issues like double-spaced mails.




> So far Peter
> Cacioppi is one of those people. He has shown no inclination that he is
> willing to take the care to communicate well according to the community
> standards here, and he has shown a distressing tendency towards snarky,
> arrogant responses to polite requests to fix his posts. 

I think its fairly straightforward to fix these issues:
First (for complete newbies) one ignores the problem and engages/answers discusses
Then one mildly mentions that this -- double-spacing/non-attribution whatever -- is causing a problem; eg the footnote that Mark (used to) keep
Then more strongly
Then finally give no response to the question under discussion except to point out and underscore the idiotic behavior -- just make sure that the claim of Peter -- "this group is working for me" -- is not kept true.

tl;dr I think Mark's scoldings in this regard will work if they come not just from him but from any and every one.  They are likely to have a larger subscription if you would agree to change: "Dont use GG!!"
to
"Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57602 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client

rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:10:16 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Do you really intend to say that we have no right to complain about
> > how difficult Google Groups makes it for us?
>
> I think you are mixing up cause and effect, symptom and disease, Steven.
>
> The symptoms are
> 1. Double spaced responses
> 2. Non/improper attribution

Both of which are Google Groups failing to implement established
standard interfaces.

> The 'disease' is:
>
> Google-groups is current technology

Google Groups attempts to interface with standard protocols of
communication, and gets it wrong. Google are well-informed of the ways
in which Google Groups is misbehaving, and they are disinclined to fix
the misbehaviour.

> whereas newsgroups/feeds etc is pre-www technology.

So what? Much of the internet is pre-WWW, too. That doesn't excuse the
misbehaviour of software which purports to interface with standard
protocols but gets them wrong.

To the extent that the mis-implementation of Google Groups makes
messages from there more difficult to read, its users should be
agitating for Google to fix the service, and/or switching to software
which conforms to standards better.

-- 
 \        “Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the |
  `\                     hours of 9 and 11 a.m. daily.” —hotel, Athens |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57617 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 06:15 AM, rusi wrote:
>[...]
> Google-groups consist of the 'children-population' (so to speak);
> newsgroups etc consist of the adult population with some exceptions.
> The appropriate way of dealing with children is not to say "Dont be
> children!" but to say "This kind of behavior is unacceptable out
> here"
>[...]

This is exactly the kind of trash-talk that provokes so much discord 
here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57649 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:15 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> tl;dr I think Mark's scoldings in this regard will work if they come not just from him but from any and every one.  They are likely to have a larger subscription if you would agree to change: "Dont use GG!!"
> to
> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "

I would say that "Don't use Google Groups" is absolutely the right
advice, because it penalizes the ultimate cause of the problem. If a
bus company sets timetables that demand the drivers work the
accelerator and brake in binary (one or the other is always flat
down), the advice is not "Don't buy eggs" but "Don't ride that bus
line". Considering how easy it is to use some other way of posting and
reading, there's no reason for the makers of a fundamentally flawed
piece of software to be rewarded with usage.

Anyway, no matter how carefully you fix your own posts, you'll still
run into the one problem you can't fix: that, because of the extremely
poor signal-to-noise ratio from GG, a number of people just won't see
your post.

And trust me. No matter how many times you ask people to read that
wiki page, you'll still get far FAR better results by recommending
Thunderbird or email. I've seen a good number of people go "Oh, my
posts are annoying because of the software I'm using? No probs, I'll
change software to not be annoying", which solves the problem without
the fiddlinesses that the wiki page advocates.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57719 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 07:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:15 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> tl;dr I think Mark's scoldings in this regard will work if they come not just from him but from any and every one.  They are likely to have a larger subscription if you would agree to change: "Dont use GG!!"
>> to
>> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "
> 
> [...]
> Anyway, no matter how carefully you fix your own posts, you'll still
> run into the one problem you can't fix: that, because of the extremely
> poor signal-to-noise ratio from GG, a number of people just won't see
> your post.

I just addressed that in another post.  Perhaps your TB reader 
somehow missed it?

> And trust me. No matter how many times you ask people to read that
> wiki page, you'll still get far FAR better results by recommending
> Thunderbird or email.

By "results" I gather you mean the production of posts that 
are non-annoying to you.  Your "results" do not seem to include
any consideration for what is preferable for the poster -- ie 
a pretty selfish definition of "results".

By all means, mention the option of using TB.  But there is
a difference between a recommendation and coercion.  And please
be accepting if the poster decides that GG is a better solution
for them.

For many people, including those that post here infrequently, 
who work from different platforms, who want remote access, who
don't have time, skills or interest in doing setup more involved
that a few mouse clicks, GG is better answer.

> I've seen a good number of people go "Oh, my
> posts are annoying because of the software I'm using? No probs, I'll
> change software to not be annoying", 

That's fine.  If someone finds TB (or whatever) suits them
better, then all's good for them.  But you are extrapolating
from a few cases to universality.

> which solves the problem without
> the fiddlinesses that the wiki page advocates.

The wiki page advocates nothing.  It offer some options for
both using GG *and* minimizing annoyance to other users.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57616 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/25/2013 08:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:44:45 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>>> The default
>>>> Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes attribution.
>>> 
>>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>> 
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
>> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
>> their obnoxious noisiness.
> 
> There are people here who hate Google Groups but simply don't chime in. 
> I'm one of them. Perhaps I should.
> 
> There are also many people who have a blanket "ignore" switch on anything 
> coming from GG, not out of any personal vendetta against you, but simply 
> out of self-defence. They don't say anything simply because they don't 
> see the posts.

They see the replies so they have every opportunity to reply.
I would hope the reason they don't is because they don't want 
to contribute to the already way too voluminous insults, flames,
nit-picking, troll-baiting and other non-python related garbage 
here.

>> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
>> little care it is usable without annoying anyone 
> 
> This is true, and thank you for taking that care, that is really 
> appreciated.
> 
> But perhaps you should consider that although GG works for you, it 
> doesn't work for many people who don't take that care. So far Peter 
> Cacioppi is one of those people. He has shown no inclination that he is 
> willing to take the care to communicate well according to the community 
> standards here, and he has shown a distressing tendency towards snarky, 
> arrogant responses to polite requests to fix his posts.

I hadn't read this whole thread, I just wanted to provide an 
alternative point of view to that expressed by Terry Reedy
re Google Groups (since I use it myself).

However, looking now, I see you pointed out that Peter originally 
cross-posted his two messages to four groups:

 alt.comp.lang.c: 4 posts total
  one (serious, on-topic [*1], non-snarky) reply and a reply from OP.

 alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi: 4 posts total
  same as above

 alt.lang.asm: 6 posts total
  three (serious, on-topic, non-snarky) replies and a reply from the OP

 comp.lang.python: 26 posts and counting
  Two immediate not-on-topic responses, one polite but a little haughty
  (what made the author assume that everyone has a weblog to post to?)
  and one, from *you*, clearly snarky:
   > Oh look, your post was cross-posted to no fewer than four
   > newsgroups. What a surprise!
  Ironic that you are complaining about snarkiness from the OP.
  Those were followed (unsurprisingly) by a snarky response from the
  OP and then (currently and counting) 26 replies, many snarky, none
  addressing the OP's topic and none directly Python related.

Perhaps the snarkiness you complain about came from other earlier
threads, but I did see anything that struck me as horrible in a brief 
sampling.

Why didn't you and the other respondents just ignore the above post, 
likely leading to the same results as in the other three groups?
Instead we are all treated to yet another endless thread (with forked
subject lines making it even harder to avoid) of non-Python related 
verbal pissing.

>> except a few drooling
>> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
>> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors GG
>> for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by the
>> anti-GG goon squad.
> 
> Your personal attacks are not appreciated. 

What I wrote was a non-personal attack.

> Why can you not accept that 
> people who post using GG's defaults cause pain and difficulty to many -- 

"Pain"?  If you really suffer pain from reading badly formatted 
posts you should consider the advice I gave to Mark Lawrence.
But ignoring the exaggerations, I can and do accept it causes 
some degree of annoyance -- it annoys me as well, and I've no
clue where you got the idea that it didn't.  But it is also 
annoying for many infrequent posters to go though the effort 
to set up a news group reader or deal with a lot of email from 
a high-volume mailing list.  And it is annoying for readers to
wade though the constant torrent of bitching by GG bashers. 
Of course I understand that you consider your annoyances more 
important that other people's but then don't we all.

I am irritated by things here too: people who haven't 
learned to tell the difference between "fact" and "my opinion", 
people who feel free to be blunt to the point of offensiveness
in their posts but who take offense at the mildest slight 
directed at them, people who can tell on the basis of a post 
or two if a question is homework or a poster is drunk or lying 
about a college degree, people who respond to every troll that 
drives by, people who regularly post messages intended for a
totally unrelated group, people who speak for "the community" 
when I never voted for them as spokesperson, etc.  But I try 
not to pollute this group by publicly venting my frustration 
every time I see an irritating post.

> probably the great majority -- of readers who use either the mailing list 
> or the news group to read this list? 

You have no basis other than wishful thinking to claim that.
Google groups has a very large following and my guess is that
the vast majority of c.l.p readers are silent and seldom if
ever post.  The large number of posts here from GG would suggest 
that the readership there is substantial, and the decline in 
"web-1.0" tools (usenet, mailing lists, etc) is additional 
evidence that the number of GG users (who are used to and 
prefer flashier web-based interfaces) may be much greater 
than you would like to think. 

> Don't you think that they are 
> entitled to complain when people repeatedly post double-spaced, hard to 
> read messages, or set the reply address wrongly, or include no context or 
> attributes, or all of the above at once?

"entitled" is too subjective a word for me but I do think
the such complaints have a major negative effect on the value 
of this group to those of us who come here looking for Python-
related discussions.

> Do you really intend to say that we have no right to complain about how 
> difficult Google Groups makes it for us?

Poor baby!  Life is sooo hard, isn't it? :-)

----
[*1] By "on-topic" I mean on topic for the thread, not on-topic 
for the group.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57637 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:05:27 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/25/2013 08:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> However, looking now, I see you pointed out that Peter originally
> cross-posted his two messages to four groups:

I think you are confused. I haven't said anything about Peter Cacioppi 
cross-posting. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't cross-posted 
anything here.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57716 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 11:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:05:27 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On 10/25/2013 08:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [...]
>> However, looking now, I see you pointed out that Peter originally
>> cross-posted his two messages to four groups:
> 
> I think you are confused. I haven't said anything about Peter Cacioppi 
> cross-posting. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't cross-posted 
> anything here.

Yes, it seems I somehow concluded that Skybuck Flying who originated 
the thread (in which you immediately complained about cross-posting)
and Peter were the same person, without any good reason.  Apologies 
to you and Peter.  However, I don't think that invalidates the other
points I made.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57675 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:05 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The large number of posts here from GG would suggest
> that the readership there is substantial, and the decline in
> "web-1.0" tools (usenet, mailing lists, etc) is additional
> evidence that the number of GG users (who are used to and
> prefer flashier web-based interfaces) may be much greater
> than you would like to think.

That's not a problem. The people who think that Web 2.0 has to
completely supplant everything else are most welcome to spend all day
on Facebook, and try to get their homework help from there. I don't
mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use - and to
understand - the lower-level internet protocols that actually work. We
will then go on to develop communication protocols that don't involve
JavaScript in web browsers, that don't have ten-round-trip latency,
and that actually work. SMTP-like or MUD-like protocols seem to be
quite effective, in my experience.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57720 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 04:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:05 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The large number of posts here from GG would suggest
>> that the readership there is substantial, and the decline in
>> "web-1.0" tools (usenet, mailing lists, etc) is additional
>> evidence that the number of GG users (who are used to and
>> prefer flashier web-based interfaces) may be much greater
>> than you would like to think.
> 
> That's not a problem. The people who think that Web 2.0 has to
> completely supplant everything else are most welcome to spend all day
> on Facebook, and try to get their homework help from there. I don't
> mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use - and to
> understand - the lower-level internet protocols that actually work. We
> will then go on to develop communication protocols that don't involve
> JavaScript in web browsers, that don't have ten-round-trip latency,
> and that actually work. SMTP-like or MUD-like protocols seem to be
> quite effective, in my experience.

That's a pretty bigoted view of a large class of people.  
I understand your desire to stay with the technology you 
have learned and are familiar with.  However, your apparent 
desire to exclude people who don't share your view is a 
shame and seems contrary to the PSFs policy of being 
welcoming and encouraging diversity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57827 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 2013-10-26, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:44:45 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2013 02:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 2:57 PM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>>> The default Google Group client is notoriously cruddy with quotes
>>>> attribution.
>>> 
>>> So don't use it. Get any decent newsreader, such as Thunderbird, and
>>> access the list at news.gmane.org as gmane.comp.python.general.
>> 
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
>> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
>> their obnoxious noisiness.
>
> There are people here who hate Google Groups but simply don't chime in. 
> I'm one of them. Perhaps I should.

More that a few of us just filter out all posts made from Google
Groups.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm having a MID-WEEK
                                  at               CRISIS!
                              gmail.com            

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57565

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:57:37 +0100, Peter Cacioppi  
<peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some readers can discern context from the previous posts. That's sort of  
> what the word context means. But I understand this skill isn't universal.

Some readers are reading this "forum" as a mailing list or Usenet  
newsgroup.  Google groups seems to delight in making the "previous" post a  
poorly defined concept (by gratuitously breaking reference chains and the  
like).  It's not that the skill isn't universal, it's that the opportunity  
isn't.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57658

Rusi said:


"Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 

Yes, I read those instructions and found them fairly opaque. If you want to instruct "children" (odd that I find myself categorized that way on a CS forum, but whatever) then you use pictures.

Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow to make posts hygenic. The standards I've used when creating this sort of content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.

With re: the snark ... I am shocked, shocked to find snarky comments on the internet. (eyeroll) There was plenty of snark in this joint before I posted, good luck policing that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57696

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Rusi said:
> 
> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
> 
> 
> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
> to make posts hygenic.

Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
- to remove extra spurious lines
- to NOT top-post

> The standards I've used when creating this sort of 
> content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're 
> going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an 
> extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.

Please do!
If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!"
Who is the 'you' you think you are addressing?

> 
> With re: the snark ... I am shocked, shocked to find snarky comments on the internet. (eyeroll) There was plenty of snark in this joint before I posted, good luck policing that.

Not my complaint: idiocy was my complaint

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57698

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
> - to remove extra spurious lines
> - to NOT top-post

If someone's editing that page, it'd be nice to also ask people to
chop their lines short - most newsgroup and mail clients hard-wrap to
80 characters, but GG posts invariably come through with one-line
paragraphs. It's annoying when you try to quote the text, and several
online archives look ugly when the lines are too long.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57786

On 10/26/2013 07:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
>> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
>> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
>> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
>> - to remove extra spurious lines
>> - to NOT top-post
> 
> If someone's editing that page, it'd be nice to also ask people to
> chop their lines short - most newsgroup and mail clients hard-wrap to
> 80 characters, but GG posts invariably come through with one-line
> paragraphs. It's annoying when you try to quote the text, and several
> online archives look ugly when the lines are too long.

That describes my personal preferences too but...

I know people who complain about manually wrapped lines.  When you 
widen the window they don't expand to fill the width, and when you 
narrow the window they wrap and create this awful ragged effect.

Long lines wrapped by the client reader seem to be pretty common
these days, not just from GG but from many sources although they 
remain a minority of messages in c.l.p.

Further, although I've commonly seen complaints about top-posting 
or occasionally excessive untrimmed context or html, I don't recall 
seeing any complaints about long lines.  Rusi posts here frequently
with long lines and I've not seen any complaints related to that.

I seems to me unfair to demand different standards from GG users 
than others even if such posts are more common from GG.

Maybe there should be a c.l.p etiquette page somewhere applicable 
to all posters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57721

On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> Rusi said:
>> 
>> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
>> 
>> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
>> to make posts hygenic.

First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
wrote that page.

> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.

OK, I have not seen the the cc option in a long time either.

> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added

I don't understand this.  When I use GG I have not noticed missing
attributions.  Do you have any idea under what circumstances it happens?

> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
> - to remove extra spurious lines

That is point #2 on the page, right after the point about double posting
and will be #1 when the double posting point is removed.  Are you saying
that is it not prominent enough, or not clear enough?
 
> - to NOT top-post

Good point, I'll add that.

>> The standards I've used when creating this sort of 
>> content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're 
>> going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an 
>> extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.
> 
> Please do!
> If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!"
> Who is the 'you' you think you are addressing?

If me, I'll think about it but given that the page is instructions
about how to modify text, pictures would not come to my mind immediately
as being most appropriate.

Thanks again though for the suggestions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57730

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> >> Rusi said:
> >> 
> >> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> >> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
> >> 
> >> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
> >> to make posts hygenic.
> 
> 
> First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
> wrote that page.

One more 'to-be-removed' from that page is the bit about new and old GG at the end.  It used to work for a while. Now google has completely removed the 'old interface' (at least to the best of my knowledge).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57787

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:59:05 AM UTC-6, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> > First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
> > wrote that page.
> 
> One more 'to-be-removed' from that page is the bit about new and old GG at the end.  It used to work for a while. Now google has completely removed the 'old interface' (at least to the best of my knowledge).

I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web