Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #56907 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 92 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2a0bf4e-a390-4fbd-802e-dbb6c709b75d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57787 |
On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote: > I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement? Most people who top-post have no idea that they are top-posting and that there are alternatives and they are preferred (out here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Placement_of_replies should help Otherwise ok I think
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eada19f6-cf4d-4ea0-8c1b-3770381e8559@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57788 |
On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:26:21 AM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote: > On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement? > > > Otherwise ok I think Just looked at the general netiquette link -- its long and not much use for a technical oriented forum. Some items missed (irrespective of GG usage) 1. Good subject line 2. Good code examples http://sscce.org/ 3. http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-28 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <426990fc-4285-46df-9295-421dbe5b40cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57791 |
On 10/28/2013 12:51 AM, rusi wrote: > > On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:26:21 AM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com >> >> wrote: >>> >>> I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement? >> >> >> >> Otherwise ok I think > > > > Just looked at the general netiquette link -- its long and not much > > use for a technical oriented forum. I agree. Wikipedia is convenient but almost never suitable as a learning resource. I'll see if I can find a friendlier general netiquette link. Recommendations welcome. > > Some items missed (irrespective of GG usage) 1. Good subject line 2. > > Good code examples http://sscce.org/ 3. > > http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I am hesitant to put too many general netiquette rules there. Such rules aren't applicable to only GG users. The alternate recommendations made to GG users here (to use usenet and email) are always made without a list of netiquette rules even though the recipients are the same people using GG. Why should GG users be told about those rules when they get advice about using GG but not when they get advice to use email or usenet? What would be best I think is a separate page with general guidelines for posting that any user could be pointed to. Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive. I wish someone would rewrite it without the "we are gods" attitude. Thanks again for your feedback.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 17:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1742.1383027732.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #57876 |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote: > Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge > it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and > abrasive. I wish someone would rewrite it without the > "we are gods" attitude. I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. On the roleplaying game Threshold, there's a help file about that, which succinctly sums up what I'm trying to say, but it doesn't seem to be on the web, so unless you want to telnet to thresholdrpg.com, create an account, and type "help hierarchy" at the prompt, you can't see the text of it. Oh well. :| Anyway, point is: We're in a hierarchy (or actually several independent and unrelated ones), and being at the top means (in the open source world) being everyone's servant; and the people at the top simply don't have time to be _everyone's_ servant personally, so they need some sous-servants to help them to help people. (Obvious example of that in the Python community is Guido at the top, other core committers and PEP writers and so on helping him, and then the large crew of core question-answerers, bug triagers, patch writers, etc, etc, etc.) You offer courtesy to those who are above you; they're giving of their time freely, making themselves your servants, and all they ask is that you make it easy for them to do so. That's a pretty good deal for all of us at the bottom of the hierarchy :) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 19:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6bccef9-8831-415f-b2b1-5cd9b2865203@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57887 |
On 10/29/2013 12:22 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge >> it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and >> abrasive. I wish someone would rewrite it without the >> "we are gods" attitude. > > I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a > hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. On the > roleplaying game Threshold, there's a help file about that, which > succinctly sums up what I'm trying to say, but it doesn't seem to be > on the web, so unless you want to telnet to thresholdrpg.com, create > an account, and type "help hierarchy" at the prompt, you can't see the > text of it. Oh well. :| Anyway, point is: We're in a hierarchy (or > actually several independent and unrelated ones), and being at the top > means (in the open source world) being everyone's servant; and the > people at the top simply don't have time to be _everyone's_ servant > personally, so they need some sous-servants to help them to help > people. (Obvious example of that in the Python community is Guido at > the top, other core committers and PEP writers and so on helping him, > and then the large crew of core question-answerers, bug triagers, > patch writers, etc, etc, etc.) You offer courtesy to those who are > above you; they're giving of their time freely, making themselves your > servants, and all they ask is that you make it easy for them to do so. > That's a pretty good deal for all of us at the bottom of the hierarchy This is a matter of philosophy and opinion so it is way off-topic and not something I want to continue discussing but... One doesn't offer courtesy in return for free software, one offers courtesy because the other person is a human being and with courtesy is how you'd like him to treat you. But in the open software world we're often not talking about demands for courtesy so much as for deference. The reasonable quid-pro-quo in open software is that developers get enjoyment of producing good stuff, voluntary respect and thanks, free feedback, bug reporting, patches. Users get good free software. There is no need for more than that. Your hierarchy is particularly unappealing to me. We all know that such hierarchies exist in the real world, but there is a question: should they be promoted as a natural and desirable state of society to be encouraged? There are people like Ayn Rand who have argued they are natural and should be encouraged. But I, having grown up with the concepts of democracy, egalitarianism, and individualism in which treatment I ask for I should also extend to you, don't accept those views. In fact I think they have a somewhat fascist odor. I don't wish to participate in a culture or sub-culture in which such "worth" hierarchies are promoted. Finally, your choice of a game based on feudal medieval standards of behavior and morality to explain your view does not help your argument IMO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-01 07:00 +0000 |
| Subject | OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] |
| Message-ID | <5273518d$0$29972$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57887 |
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:22:03 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful >> advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive. I wish someone >> would rewrite it without the "we are gods" attitude. > > I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a > hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. Hmmm, well it's not clear to me that ESR doesn't consider himself at the top of any hacker hierarchy. I'm sure that he considers that there are those who know more than him with respect to some specific technology or other, and I'm sure he doesn't think geeks fall into organisation charts with nice neat lines between those who report to whom. But I also think he doesn't have the false modesty to put himself anywhere but in the top "elite geek hacker" category. [...] > We're in a hierarchy (or actually > several independent and unrelated ones), and being at the top means (in > the open source world) being everyone's servant; and the people at the > top simply don't have time to be _everyone's_ servant personally, so > they need some sous-servants to help them to help people. An interesting thought, but I wouldn't put it that way. It seems to me that a better description would be that geeks tend to be big believers in "giving back", or perhaps something akin to "Whiteman's Burden" that Kipling believed in, the idea that those who have have a duty to those who don't. Of course, the whole colonialism thing is out of favour these days, and truth be told the idea of bringing "civilization to the savages" was more honoured in the breach than in the observance even in Kipling's day. But the idea that those who have more than others (be that skills, knowledge or possessions) have a duty towards those who don't is not a bad philosophy to live be. If we must have hierarchies -- and alas, Homo sapiens being as it is, we do -- it is better for those at the top to have a duty to serve as well as privileges. That's what Heinlein was getting at with the (often misunderstood) "Starship Troopers". Did it glorify military service? Yes it did, but it also emphasised the *service* part. If you want the privilege of citizenship, they you have to earn it by first serving. But I think that *servant* is not the right description for the relationship you are talking about. That implies that (say) I could demand ESR's service at any time, or at least at any time within pre- defined boundaries (even servants get days off), and that he would have no right to refuse service. But that's not the case. He is a volunteer who is free to say No at any time, and the quickest way to get him to say No would be to treat him as a servant. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-01 19:19 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1910.1383293976.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #58241 |
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:22:03 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful >>> advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive. I wish someone >>> would rewrite it without the "we are gods" attitude. >> >> I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a >> hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. > > Hmmm, well it's not clear to me that ESR doesn't consider himself at the > top of any hacker hierarchy. I'm sure that he considers that there are > those who know more than him with respect to some specific technology or > other, and I'm sure he doesn't think geeks fall into organisation charts > with nice neat lines between those who report to whom. But I also think > he doesn't have the false modesty to put himself anywhere but in the top > "elite geek hacker" category. There are multiple independent hierarchies, and in some of them, he may well be at (or close to) the top - but not all of them. Proper acceptance of a hierarchical world includes knowing that there's always someone above you. > But I think that *servant* is not the right description for the > relationship you are talking about. That implies that (say) I could > demand ESR's service at any time, or at least at any time within pre- > defined boundaries (even servants get days off), and that he would have > no right to refuse service. But that's not the case. He is a volunteer > who is free to say No at any time, and the quickest way to get him to say > No would be to treat him as a servant. It's a tricky concept to describe, and I agree that "servant" isn't an ideal term for it. I'm the head of a (tiny) community called Minstrel Hall, and what that means is that whenever anyone needs something done, it's my job to do it. That's not the classic understanding of the servant's role (the bonded man who has to do whatever he's told immediately), but is somewhat closer to a somewhat obscure term: servitor [1] or sizar [2]. I first met that word via Princess Ida, who stated that her university had no such students, though Wikipedia gives a better actual definition. The head of a community has certain duties to perform [3] and may or may not receive respect in return. Ultimately, if the head doesn't do his (or her, but the "his/her" "he/she" gets tedious) duties, he'll have no community following him, so he's responsible to his members in a very direct way. ChrisA [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servitor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizar [3] The quirky part of my brain is thinking now of this, sung by one of the kings in a newly-formed republican monarchy (it makes sense in context): http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/gondoliers/web_opera/gond12.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 08:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1757.1383050756.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #57876 |
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:03:50 -0700 (PDT), rurpy@yahoo.com declaimed the
following:
>
>I agree. Wikipedia is convenient but almost never suitable
>as a learning resource. I'll see if I can find a friendlier
>general netiquette link. Recommendations welcome.
>
Probably not the raw RFC then... Section 3.x is most applicable
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1653.1382890236.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #57696 |
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:56:30 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:
>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.
>
And I think it all comes to the same basis as the infernal double-space
quotes...
{Hypothesis based on black-box observation} GG is using HTML for
formatting internally, so what it displays as a nicely wrapped paragraph
goes out to Usenet/MailingList as a single long line -- the <p></p> becomes
a pair of line-ending characters as seen by NNTP clients (a pair to put a
blank line between /paragraphs/). In the other direction, properly
formatted (<80character) lines are being wrapped by <p></p> tags on input
to GG -- each of our display lines becoming a single paragraph on GG. Now
when quoted and sent back out, these 'paragraphs' get the double-space
treatment.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbe6daf9-1395-4126-8f2e-b3f35a3d5883@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57658 |
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 > > 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. The children is intended almost literally: GG claims that the python list (or its version thereof) has 21447 'members'. I am willing to bet that the average age of the 21447 humans whose records are in google's dbms is between half and one-third of those that use usenet channels. I am speaking a bit legalistically because just as statisticians will argue about what 'average' (or mean) means, likewise we could argue about what a 'member' means: - someone who joins but does not post - someone who joins and does not even read - someone who posts frequently. [What's the frequency threshold?] And which is why I quoted the passage from mathsemantics in the other thread (repeated below). So all we can really infer is that the table in some GG database contains 21447 records ------------ I 1980 I was one passenger, ten passengers, eighteen passengers, thirty-six passengers, forty-two passengers, fifty-five passengers, seventy-two passengers and ninety-four passengers. Each of these statements is true. ----------- ... explanation... ----------- I was one passenger in the sense that I was a person who traveled by air in that year. I was eighteen passengers in the sense that I made eighteen round trips. I was forty-two passengers in the sense that on forty-two different occasions I entered and exited the system of a different carrier. I was seventy-two passengers in the sense that on seventy-two occasions I was on board an aircraft when it took off from one place and landed at another. I was ninety-four passengers in the sense that I made ninety-four separate entrances and exits from airport terminal buildings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <609296f1-9f16-41eb-8d0a-be4159618272@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56907 |
Rusi said : "Please do! If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!" Well, I don't really know what the GG best practice ought to be here. What I am doing now (manually copying whatever I need to quote to give some context) seems to be tolerable to law enforcement (I guess). But I'm minimizing the PIA not with some clever GG usage but by exploiting two monitors and the way I have "open in new browser" configured. It isn't something I'd care to document and it doesn't really scale to general usage. And, for all I know, the goons are still grinding their teeth, they're just more quiet now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79a7d224-2b35-4ff3-a914-645d581282c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56907 |
Mark said : "The White Flag before this also escalates out of control. " This word "before" ... I don't think it means what you think it means. This thread has been off the rails for days.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web