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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #57903 > unrolled thread

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

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#57903 — Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

> Because it's logical.

"
What is logical?
"

To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.

The exit condition glues the loop to the code that will be executed next 
which is also at the bottom.

Example:

Loop

NextCode

^


Placing the exit ondition near next code makes more sense at least in 
situation where I was programming.

I will give you an example:



LoopBegin( Step = 10 )

    if ButtonExists then
    begin
        ClickButton()
    end;

LoopEnd( ButtonClicked )

Execute next code...

This loop waits for the button to appear, once it's found it is clicked and 
then the loop exits to continue the next code.

Putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense.

Bye,
  Skybuck. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57917

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:

> To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.
> 
> The exit condition glues the loop to the code that will be executed next
> which is also at the bottom.

Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any 
programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual 
programming languages.

In a while loop, such as in Python, the test is at the top of the loop 
because the test is performed at the start of the loop, not the end:

while x > 0:
    do_this()
    do_that()


It would be inappropriate (as well as ugly!) to put the test at the end 
of the loop, like this:

x = 0
while:
    do_this()
    do_that()
    many more lines go here
    possibly even pages of code
    until finally, at long last
    you get to the end where you find the test...
x > 0

... and discover whether or not the while loop was actually entered or 
not. Similarly with for-loops, the loop condition is at the beginning 
because it runs at the beginning. This would be silly:

for i:
    body of loop goes here
    could be many many lines of code
    even pages of code
    but eventually, at long last
    we get to the end, and find out
    what the first value for i will be
in range(100, 110)


There is one sort of loop where it makes sense to have the loop condition 
at the end. Python doesn't have such a loop, but Pascal does: the repeat 
until loop. Unlike while, repeat until is always executed at least once, 
so the loop condition isn't tested until the end of the loop:

repeat
    do this
    do that
    do something else
until x > 0



[...]
> LoopBegin( Step = 10 )
> 
>     if ButtonExists then
>     begin
>         ClickButton()
>     end;
> 
> LoopEnd( ButtonClicked )
> 
> Execute next code...
> 
> This loop waits for the button to appear, once it's found it is clicked
> and then the loop exits to continue the next code.

What if the button has already appeared before the loop starts?

I think that is better written as:


# Check the loop condition at the start
while the button does not exist:
    wait a bit
# Outside the loop
click the button

(Although such a loop is called a "busy wait" loop, since it keeps the 
computer being busy without doing anything useful. There are better ways 
to do this than a loop.)

Even in Pascal, I would use a while loop rather than repeat, but if you 
insist on using repeat, clicking the button still should go on the 
outside of the loop:

# this is wasteful, since even if the button exists, the loop still 
# waits a bit, for no good reason
repeat
     wait a bit
until the button exists
click the button



> Putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense.

Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes 
sense or doesn't.



-- 
Steven

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

#57966

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>[...]
> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any 
> programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual 
> programming languages.
>[...]
> Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes 
> sense or doesn't.

Couldn't you have simply made your points without the above comments?
Those points stand perfectly fine on their own without the ad hominem
attack.

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

#58023

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:07 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>[...]
>> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
>> programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual
>> programming languages.
>>[...]
>> Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes
>> sense or doesn't.
> 
> Couldn't you have simply made your points without the above comments?
> Those points stand perfectly fine on their own without the ad hominem
> attack.

Not every observation about a person is "ad hominem", let alone an 
attack, even if they are uncomplimentary. You are mistaken to identify 
such observations as both.

"Ad hominem" is the standard term for a logical fallacy, whereby a claim 
is rejected solely because of *irrelevant personal characteristics* of 
the person making the claim, rather than allowing it to stand on its own 
merits. It is not an ad hominem to call somebody a pillock. It is, 
however, an ad hominem to imply that *merely because they are a pillock* 
their arguments must therefore be wrong.

Ad hominems:

    "Henry's argument cannot be believed, as he is known to hang 
     around loose women, thieves and tax collectors."

    "Of course George would oppose the war, he's a homosexual."

    "Clearly Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would 
     she know about programming?"


Not ad hominems:

    "Susan's argument in favour of the proposal is influenced by
     the fact that she will make a lot of money if it goes ahead."

    "David has no experience with Oracle databases, and his advice
     about Oracle technology should be taken with caution."

    "Barry is a plonker. His post is good evidence of this, and
     here are the reasons why..."


Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of 
whether or not he understands what he is talking about.

If you consider that merely suggesting that somebody is not experienced 
at programming counts as an attack, well, words fail me.

If you want to accuse me of anything underhanded, "poisoning the well" 
would be more appropriate. At least that is in the ball-park. A cynical, 
nasty-minded person [this is an example of poisoning the well] might 
consider that by merely pointing out that Skybuck appears to have no 
actual experience in programming, I'm trying to influence others to 
reject his claims out of hand. If that's how you want to see it, I can't 
stop you. On the other hand, an alternative interpretation is that by 
gently reminding Skybuck that he doesn't have any real experience in the 
topic he's discussing (or so it seems), he'll be encouraged to actually 
learn something.

I think it is quite unfair of you to misrepresent my post as an attack, 
particularly since my reply gave an example of a type of loop that 
supports Skybuck's position.


 
-- 
Steven

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

#58144

On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:07 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
>>> programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual
>>> programming languages.
>>>[...]
>>> Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes
>>> sense or doesn't.
>> 
>> Couldn't you have simply made your points without the above comments?
>> Those points stand perfectly fine on their own without the ad hominem
>> attack.
> 
> Not every observation about a person is "ad hominem", let alone an 
> attack, even if they are uncomplimentary. You are mistaken to identify 
> such observations as both.
> 
> "Ad hominem" is the standard term for a logical fallacy, whereby a claim 
> is rejected solely because of *irrelevant personal characteristics* of 
> the person making the claim [...]
> 
> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of 
> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.

No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
analysis of it.  You then used your conclusion to claim he has 
no programming experience.  You can not then use that latter 
claim to support the argument that his proposition makes no 
sense.  (That is circular.)  His programming experience is a 
personal characteristic, and (limiting ourself to your arguments),
can conclude inexperience only if we've already accepted your 
conclusion that his proposal is nutty, so his experience seems
irrelevant to me.  Hence it meets your definition of an
ad hominem argument.

Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly
Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about 
programming?" depends on the non-validity of the logical 
implication.  Yet I'm sure you are aware that are some people 
who would find that a valid implication and if you could not 
defend it, then you would not be able to claim ad hominem.
Of course it *is* easily defendable which is why you used it 
as an example.  But in your reply to Skybuck, the implication 
is "nutty proposal" -> inexperience.  Yet we frequently see 
highly educated and experienced people who support nutty ideas
all the time, things like homeopathic medicine or psychic 
abilities.  So I think your claim that you were not using an
ad hominem argument is weak on that ground too.

(Even if none of the above were true, I would still ask, why 
shouldn't someone's opinion on a programming topic stand on 
their arguments alone without regard to whether they've written
code on a physical machine?)

> If you consider that merely suggesting that somebody is not experienced 
> at programming counts as an attack, well, words fail me.

You didn't "merely suggest", you claimed it to be true:

  "Wait until you actually start programming before deciding
  what makes sense or doesn't."

>[...]
> I think it is quite unfair of you to misrepresent my post as an attack, 
> particularly since my reply gave an example of a type of loop that 
> supports Skybuck's position.

It wasn't unfair because it wasn't a misrepresentation.  Your 
irrelevant speculation about programming experience when the
issue he brought up was constructs for loops would raise most 
people's hackles who offered their opinion in good faith.

Further, quoting from his original post, 

  "(after having some experience with python which lacks repeat 
  until/goto/labels and programming game bots)"

you are also implying he is a liar.  So yes, it certainly is 
fair to describe your response as an attack. 

Given that your speculation added nothing to the reasonable
part of your response (which as I said was perfectly fine on 
it's own) and likely served only to antagonize, why add it?
(Unless of course you enjoy a good flame-fest like so many 
of the resident trolls here.)

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

#58155

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
> 
> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your analysis
> of it.  

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up -- not 
just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst 
possible way, but completely inventing things I never said. Not only did 
I never say that Skybuck's proposition "made no sense", but I gave an 
example of a language with a loop that does exactly what he wants, and 
explicitly described as making sense:

"There is one sort of loop where it makes sense to have the loop condition
at the end. Python doesn't have such a loop, but Pascal does: the repeat
until loop."

I don't know whether to be more offended for myself, that you would 
invent such a bare-faced falsehood about what I said, or for anyone else 
reading this thread, that you should assume they would fail to notice 
that not only did I not say what you quote me as saying, but that it is 
the *opposite* of what I actually said.

I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just 
such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by 
Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting 
false words into my mouth.

As for the rest of your argument, I am not of the opinion that he is an 
inexperienced programmer because his proposal is "nutty" (YOUR word, not 
mine) since I don't think his proposal is completely nutty. There are use-
cases for putting the loop condition at the end. I think he is an 
inexperienced programmer because of the lack of any sign in his emails 
that he has any meaningful experience in programming.

As for your defence[1] of the ad hominem "Clearly Julie is mistaken, 
she's just a girl, what would she know about programming?", I am not one 
of those cultural relativists who thinks that any belief, no matter how 
stupid, should be judged on how sincere the person expressing it is. 
Regardless of how sincere they might be, they are simply *wrong*, their 
argument is irrational, and it is an ad hominem fallacy. Women, even 
"girls", are capable of having detailed knowledge about programming, and 
there is no logical or factual reason for debating this point, any more 
than we should be debating whether or not people with brown hair or flat 
feet can program.


> (Even if none of the above were true, I would still ask, why shouldn't
> someone's opinion on a programming topic stand on their arguments alone
> without regard to whether they've written code on a physical machine?)

Of course their arguments stand on their merits. But those merits are 
likely to be pretty slim, if their arguments are not grounded in reality. 
We know what happens when "great thinkers" start philosophising without 
any grounding in reality, we get Pliny the Elder who concluded that elks 
have no knees, and Aristotle, who was married twice but apparently never 
thought to look inside either of his wives' mouth, who maintained that 
women have fewer teeth than men. And so we come back to Skybuck, who 
apparently believes that the use of GOTO instead of loops makes code more 
reliable and easier to maintain.




[1] To head off false accusations that I'm misrepresenting you, here for 
the record are your exact words:

    [quote]
    Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly 
    Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about
    programming?" depends on the non-validity of the logical
    implication.  Yet I'm sure you are aware that are some people who
    would find that a valid implication and if you could not defend it,
    then you would not be able to claim ad hominem. Of course it *is*
    easily defendable which is why you used it as an example.
    [end quote]

On the contrary, the implication that women cannot program is utterly 
counterfactual and hence is indefensible. It simply isn't and cannot be 
true. Even if there was not a single female programmer in the world -- 
and in reality there are thousands or tens of thousands -- there is 
nothing in biology, chemistry, physics or abstract logic to suggest that 
female Homo sapiens in this world could be inherently incapable of 
programming.



-- 
Steven

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

#58239

On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your analysis
>> of it.  
> 
> I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up -- not 
> just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst 
> possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.

Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his 
proposition made no sense, you disagreed with him that 
"putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense"
and claimed he had no business making such a statement
since he had no programming experience.
I misattributed the "no sense" quote.  Please note that 
that is not the same as "making something up".

> Not only did 
> I never say that Skybuck's proposition "made no sense", but I gave an 
> example of a language with a loop that does exactly what he wants, and 
> explicitly described as making sense:
> 
> "There is one sort of loop where it makes sense to have the loop condition
> at the end. Python doesn't have such a loop, but Pascal does: the repeat
> until loop."

As I said above, I read your response as disagreeing with 
Skybuck's idea: that the loop test should *always* go at 
the bottom.

That you agree with *sometimes* putting the test at the 
bottom does not contradict that you disagreed with his 
general proposition.

> I don't know whether to be more offended for myself, that you would 
> invent such a bare-faced falsehood about what I said, or for anyone else 
> reading this thread, that you should assume they would fail to notice 
> that not only did I not say what you quote me as saying, but that it is 
> the *opposite* of what I actually said.

No, it was *not* the opposite.  It was an overstatement 
of your position: "I think the proposition is nutty" versus
"I disagree with the proposition".  Presumably if you think
a proposition is nutty or non-nonsensical you also disagree 
with it and the former is a stronger version of the latter.

> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just 
> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by 
> Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apology from you for putting 
> false words into my mouth.

An apology is due when someone does some damage to things 
or people (including reputation or feelings) that should 
have been avoided.

My overstating your disagreement with Skybuck was inadvertent, 
does not change the points I was making (it does not matter 
whether you thought he was wrong or nutty) and did no 
significant damage to you or your reputation.  

You damage your own reputation far more by your use of 
erroneous protestations, hyperpole and faux indignation [*1]
to distract from the actual issue, your implications that I 
may be lying, deliberately misrepresenting and inventing 
bare-faced falsehoods, and your propensity to attack others 
based on unsubstantiated speculation which was the origin 
of this discussion.

So I acknowledge I overstated your position, but sorry, 
no apology beyond that.

Now hopefully having addressed the indignation bit we can
get back to the actual points under discussion?

> As for the rest of your argument, I am not of the opinion that he is an 
> inexperienced programmer because his proposal is "nutty" (YOUR word, not 
> mine) since I don't think his proposal is completely nutty. There are use-
> cases for putting the loop condition at the end. I think he is an 
> inexperienced programmer because of the lack of any sign in his emails 
> that he has any meaningful experience in programming.

Replacing "his proposal is nutty" with "his proposal is wrong",
what "signs" did you expect to be present beyond the fact he 
advocated looping in a way you don't agree with?  A CV?  
As I pointed out (again missing from your quotes) he *did*
claim programing experience in his original post.

I also note your change from your original "no programming 
experience" to "no meaningful programming experience".

> As for your defence[1] of the ad hominem "Clearly Julie is mistaken, 
> she's just a girl, what would she know about programming?", [...]

That part was poorly written and was not intended to be a 
defense of the Julie ad hominen.  My intent was to acknowledge 
that it was an ad hominem, show a reason why it was an ad 
hominem and show that that same reason also applied to your 
ad hominem attack against Skybuck.  Unfortunately in a late-
night last-minute edit I screwed it up pretty badly.  I 
started off,

>>  Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly 
>>  Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about
>>  programming?" depends on the non-validity of the logical
>>  implication.
 
When what I meant was more like,

>>  Secondly, the example ad hominem argument you gave, "Clearly 
>>  Julie is mistaken, she's just a girl, what would she know about
>>  programming?", that it is an ad hominen depends on the non-validity
>>  of the logical implication. 

I then tried to show you that whether someone accepts an 
argument as an ad hominem or not depends on whether one accepts 
the validity of the implication or not by using, as an example, 
people that I thought you would know exist, if not know personally.

>>  Yet I'm sure you are aware that are some people who
>>  would find that a valid implication and if you could not defend it,
>>  then you would not be able to claim ad hominem.

That of course makes no sense, since for you to claim it is 
an ad hominem, you (being the one who presented it as an
ad hominem) need to show the implication is *invalid*, not
defend it.  You would defend the claim that the whole statement 
is an ad hominem.  Which is what I intended to say.

Finally
>>  Of course it *is*
>>  easily defendable which is why you used it as an example.

Again I was thinking of the entire statement as defendable 
as an ad hominem, not the logical implication within, but 
that is sadly not how it came out and I can see how the 
whole thing reads the the opposite of what I intended.  
I will note though that had you read with a more open mind
you might have noticed something was amiss since I would 
hardly be saying you would have used that as an example 
if it obviously wasn't an ad hominem.

While I screwed up that explanation, the conclusion remains 
the same: that an argument is an ad hominem depends on the
invalidity of the embedded implication.  Your accusation of
no "programming experience" toward Skybuck is an ad hominem
despite your denial because (in addition to the personal 
aspect) the implicit implication is 

  "his claim, 'putting the loop condition at the top is
   wrong' is wrong"  ->  "he has no programming experience."

and that is an invalid implication, especially given the 
existence of his explicit statement that he *did* have 
programming experience.

I hope that explanation is a little clearer.

>[...snip uninteresting discourse on Aristotle and elk knees...]
> And so we come back to Skybuck, who 
> apparently believes that the use of GOTO instead of loops makes
> code more reliable and easier to maintain.

First he never said anything about reliability or maintenance.
He said explicitly wanted goto's for error handling and to 
the extent I understood him, I gather he wanted access to 
low-level asm-like features from HLLs, which would be consistent 
with his cross-posting to alt.lang.asm.

Also, advocating availability of goto's does not imply no 
programming experience.  Someone who's used goto's in Visual
Basic for error exits might want them elsewhere (not saying
it's a good idea, just that it doesn't show "no programming 
experience").  Further, I have seen credible posts in this
very group that pointed out that goto might be useful in
Python in some circumstances.  I myself wouldn't mind its 
availability for one use: the implementation of efficient 
FSMs.

So even if you add his advocacy for goto to the basis for 
your conclusion he has no programming experience, it's still 
not a valid conclusion and just your opinion.

To be clear: I am not defending his arguments, I am saying
that your claim that he has no programming experience is
not supported by what he wrote and added nothing to your
perfectly fine criticism of his proposition; you could 
(and should) have left out those spurious claims.

----
[*1] Obviously I can't read your mind and can only speculate
whether or not you are truly as offended as you say or why.  
I thought that accusing you of faux indignation for rhetorical 
effect is more complementary (at least you do so skillfully) 
then leaving the implication that you unjustifiably go off 
the emotional wagon so easily. 

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

#58240

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>>> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
>>> analysis of it.
>> 
>> I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up --
>> not just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst
>> possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.
> 
> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
> statement

I said nothing of the sort.

Good lord Rurpy, I've already called you out once for misrepresenting 
what I've said, and here you are doing it again. You didn't have the good 
graces to even say sorry, instead trying to weasel out of an apology with 
a feeble "acknowledge[ment] that I overstated your position", and here 
you are again digging yourself deeper into the hole. That's three posts 
in a row -- your original post where you characterised me as making an 
"attack" on Skybuck, the second post where you escalated by attributing 
words I never wrote to me, and now this one where yet again you continue 
to misrepresent my post despite being called out on it.


[...]
> I am saying that your claim
> that he has no programming experience is not supported by what he wrote

I did not claim Skybuck had "no business" (your words) making such a 
statement about loop conditions. Far from it, I treated his opinion as a 
serious one worthy of discussion, discussing situations that both support 
and contradict his idea.

I *asked him* if he had programming experience, with an explicit 
question, and even began the question with the sort of social lubricant 
that acknowledges that the question is a touchy one ("please excuse my 
question"). I suggested that *it seems* that he doesn't have such 
experience. The normal, good-faith implication of this is that I am 
stating an opinion of how it seems to me, not an absolute fact. The whole 
exercise was to engage Skybuck in conversation, give him a chance to 
demonstrate (or at least assert) that I was mistaken about his lack of 
experience, and defend or amend his claim that putting the loop condition 
at the beginning of the loop makes no sense.

Unless you are prepared to discuss this in good faith, instead of 
continuing to misrepresent what I say, I am done discussing this with you.



-- 
Steven

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

#58307

On 10/31/2013 11:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>[...]
>> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
>> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
>> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
>> statement
> 
> I said nothing of the sort.

Steven, please stop.  Trying to treat you as as an intelligent
and intellectually honest person and consistently getting crap 
like this back is getting annoying.

Here is a synopsis of the post in question (quotes are direct 
quotes, not paraphrase) [*1]:
  Skybuck: "To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical."
  You: Ask if Skybuck has "ever done any programming at all?".
  You: Give example of python While loop with test at top
  You: Give example of loop with test at bottom: "inappropriate" and "ugly")
  You: Example of For loop with test at bottom: "silly"
  You: Example of Until loop with test at bottom: "makes sense"
  Skybuck: Example of loop with test at bottom.
  You: Similar While loop with test at top: "better"
  You: Similar Until loop with test at bottom: "I would use a while loop"
  Skybuck: "Putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense."
  You: "Wait until you actually start programming before deciding
   what makes sense or doesn't."

I paraphrased that dialog as "you disagreed with him that 
'putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense' and 
claimed he had no business making such a statement". 

Instead of endlessly repeating your misrepresentation charges
along with exaggerations like "nothing of the sort", why don't 
you for once actually say how my paraphrase differs materially
in meaning from what was said?  How would you paraphrase it?

And, how does what you said disprove my primary point: that you 
stated as fact he had no programming experience when such a 
statement was your speculation, not fact, and thus likely to 
raise someone's hackles? 

> Good lord Rurpy, I've already called you out once for misrepresenting 
> what I've said, and here you are doing it again. You didn't have the good 
> graces to even say sorry, instead trying to weasel out of an apology with 
> a feeble "acknowledge[ment] that I overstated your position", and here 
> you are again digging yourself deeper into the hole. That's three posts 
> in a row -- your original post where you characterised me as making an 
> "attack" on Skybuck, the second post where you escalated by attributing 
> words I never wrote to me, and now this one where yet again you continue 
> to misrepresent my post despite being called out on it.

Steven, in every one of those posts I explained and justified
my statements.  You don't even have the decency to address
those points -- instead you simply snip them out and repeat 
your same accusations over and over as though by repeating 
them enough times they will magically become true.

You may think you are being clever (or perhaps it is out of
desperation to avoid admitting that your response to Skybuck
was, as I demonstrated, an unjustified ad hominem attack) but 
your twisting and squirming to avoid acknowledging my points 
is painfully transparent. 

> [...]
>> I am saying that your claim
>> that he has no programming experience is not supported by what he wrote
> 
> I did not claim Skybuck had "no business" (your words) making such a 
> statement about loop conditions. Far from it, I treated his opinion as a 
> serious one worthy of discussion, discussing situations that both support 
> and contradict his idea.

His idea was that loop tests should always or usually be 
done at the end of the loop.  You discussed *nothing* that 
supported that idea.  You contradicted it by showing a 
number of examples where you claimed testing at the top 
was better.

> I *asked him* if he had programming experience, with an explicit 
> question, and even began the question with the sort of social lubricant 
> that acknowledges that the question is a touchy one ("please excuse my 
> question"). I suggested that *it seems* that he doesn't have such 
> experience. The normal, good-faith implication of this is that I am 
> stating an opinion of how it seems to me, not an absolute fact.

You seem to have a very selective memory.  I quoted your 
concluding sentence, which you conveniently leave out 
above, previously in this message.  You did not "suggest" 
when you said "Wait until you start programming...".  Nor 
is that an expression of opinion.

If you can't even tell when you're misrespresenting your 
own words, how do you expect to be able to tell when someone 
else does?

Why don't you just own up to what you wrote?

> The whole 
> exercise was to engage Skybuck in conversation, give him a chance to 
> demonstrate (or at least assert) that I was mistaken about his lack of 
> experience, and defend or amend his claim that putting the loop condition 
> at the beginning of the loop makes no sense.

Then perhaps you should not have ended your exercise by 
telling him he had no programming experience (directly 
contradicting his earlier statement that he did.)

> Unless you are prepared to discuss this in good faith, instead of 
> continuing to misrepresent what I say, I am done discussing this with you.

Good faith?  Is that is supposed to be a joke?

Yes, please.  I have wasted enough time trying to respond
calmly, logically and honestly to your sleazy, and amusing
to no one but your fans, rhetorical gymnastics.  If you can't 
write with any kind of honesty or integrity, please do stop.

One last serious comment, take it or leave it:
On the off chance you actually do believe you said nothing
to Skybuck that he should be offended by, you might want 
to consider that perhaps your perceptions of how you think 
others should react to your words are not the same way as 
others actually do.

----
[*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/-yNyjkagJ-MJ

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

#58313

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:50:02 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> Instead of endlessly repeating your misrepresentation charges along with
> exaggerations like "nothing of the sort", why don't you for once
> actually say how my paraphrase differs materially in meaning from what
> was said?

I have directly addressed your points three times. I did not "attack" the 
OP by any reasonable definition of the word. My post was not an ad 
hominem. Skybuck's experience as a programmer is relevant to the 
credibility of his opinions about programming. I did not declare as a 
fact that he had no experience, as you claim, but posed it as a question 
and expressed it explicitly as a subjective observation.

Each time I have responded to you, I have given direct quotes and 
directly addressed the substance of your posts, which is all to do with 
the supposed tone of my response to the OP. Each time you have continued 
to misrepresent me, misquote me, and interpret my words assuming bad 
faith rather than good, in order to justify your idea that my post was an 
ad hominem attack.

Including this post, where you make the false statement that:

    [quote]
    His idea was that loop tests should always or usually be done 
    at the end of the loop.  You discussed *nothing* that supported
    that idea.

Emphasis yours. But in fact I gave the concrete example of Pascal 
repeat...until loops, which have the test at the end of the loop. So yet 
again your claims are simply wrong.

This is four posts in a row now that you have wrongly represented me. I 
can only conclude that you think that by repeating a lie often enough, 
you'll convince others that it must be true and "win". I will no longer 
play this game with you. Goodbye.

*plonk*


-- 
Steven

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

#58402

On 11/01/2013 09:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>[...]
> I did not declare as a 
> fact that he had no experience, as you claim, but posed it as a question 
> and expressed it explicitly as a subjective observation.

This is a key point.  Several of your other denials are 
true only if you are right about this. 

You concluded your reply to Skybuck with:
 
 "Wait *until* you *start* programming..." [my emphasis]

The implication, that the OP does not have any programming 
experience, will be clear to anyone with with even mediocre 
English speaking ability.  The semantic information conveyed 
to the OP is the same as the statement of fact, "you have no 
programming experience" and it is perfectly valid to claim 
that you told the OP that he had no programming experience.

I pointed this out in nearly every email but in every one 
of your responses to it, you ignore that concluding sentence
and mention *only* your initial questioning sentence to 
justify your assertion that you "posed it as a question".

As an aside, you shouldn't rely on that initial question
sentence so much either -- just because something is framed
as a question does not mean its intent is not to attack:
"excuse me for asking, but are you an asshole?"
You asked, "have you *ever* done *any* programming *at all*?" 
[my emphasis] which could be as easily taken as rhetorically 
laying the ground for discrediting his idea as an honest 
neutral question and the former interpretation is strengthened 
by your concluding "wait until..." statement.

My claims of "ad hominem" and "attack" follow from the fact 
that you *did* tell the OP he had no programming experience, 
in direct contradiction to what he had stated, and with no 
evidence to support your claim beyond the OP's opinions on 
loops and goto's.

> Each time I have responded to you, I have given direct quotes and 
> directly addressed the substance of your posts, which is all to do with 
> the supposed tone of my response to the OP. Each time you have continued 
> to misrepresent me, misquote me, and interpret my words assuming bad 
> faith rather than good, in order to justify your idea that my post was an 
> ad hominem attack.
> 
> Including this post, where you make the false statement that:
> 
>     [quote]
>     His idea was that loop tests should always or usually be done 
>     at the end of the loop.  You discussed *nothing* that supported
>     that idea.
> 
> Emphasis yours. But in fact I gave the concrete example of Pascal 
> repeat...until loops, which have the test at the end of the loop. So yet 
> again your claims are simply wrong.

That was an unfortunate example for you to chose since it 
directly contradicts your claims.

Read that quote again.  You are a programmer.  You should 
understand logic.  Please explain how acknowledging *one* 
useful end-of-loop construct supports the idea that 
  /quote/ 
  loop tests should *always or usually* be done at the end of the loop 
  /endquote/,
especially when you present it with long string of cases where 
testing at the bottom is *not* desirable.  You did not agree 
with the OPs idea that the test should *always* go at the end 
of the loop and I represented your opinion as such.

This was pointed out to you before yet you continue to claim
I am misrepresenting you.

> This is four posts in a row now that you have wrongly represented me. I 
> can only conclude that you think that by repeating a lie often enough, 
> you'll convince others that it must be true and "win".

In my preceding post, I pointed out your practice of repeating
the same discredited accusations in the the hope that repeating 
them enough would somehow make them true... It is amusing to 
see you lift my own words to use against me (although I used 
the word "accusation" and you choose to use the word "lie" -- 
a difference in our standards I guess.)

I misrepresented you once, immediately acknowledged and corrected
it when you pointed it out.  You have continued to accuse me of 
misrepresenting you in *every* post you've made, while refusing 
to respond to my request to tell me how you think you *should* be
paraphrased.

Indeed you have followed a consistent policy of falsely accusing 
me of underhanded and disreputable practices, while at the same
time, often in the same sentence, engaging copiously in exactly 
those same practices yourself.  

> I will no longer 
> play this game with you. Goodbye.
> 
> *plonk*
 
Bye.

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

#58338

On 1 November 2013 05:41, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>>>> No.  You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
>>>> analysis of it.
>>>
>>> I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're making that quote up --
>>> not just misinterpreting what I said, or taking my words in the worst
>>> possible way, but completely inventing things I never said.
>>
>> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
>> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
>> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
>> statement
>
> I said nothing of the sort.

Personally, rurpy's reading seems like a reasonable one to me. Maybe
not correct in a technical sense, but at least reasonable.

Particularly, the phrase

"Wait until you actually start programming before deciding what makes
sense or doesn't."

seems especially harsh, and would be furthermore so should Skybuck be
a professional programmer. That's a phrase easy to take badly,
especially over this medium.

Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
that you're both on the same side here.

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

#58365

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
[...]
> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
> that you're both on the same side here.

Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate the 
subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments about the 
precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in good faith, 
they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens of posts.


-- 
Steven

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

#58389

Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
> 
> Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
> a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
> good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.
> 
> I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate the 
> subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments about the 
> precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in good faith, 
> they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens of posts.

I'm not so sure it is all in good faith. I see a lot of persons digging
in their heels and not much effort in trying to understand someone else's
point of view.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

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

#58403

On 11/02/2013 11:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
> 
> Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
> a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
> good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

Steven, "presumption of good faith" is typical of the 
disingenuous remarks that have permeated your posts 
in this thread.

Early on, I misrepresented you by claiming you thought
Skybuck's proposal was "nutty" rather than that you 
simply and reasonably disagreed with it [*1].  I also 
used the phrase "makes no sense" implying it came from 
you rather than from Skybuck as it had [*2].

However in pointing my mistake out [*3], you did so 
with remarks like:

 "You're making that quote up"
 "that you would invent such a bare-faced falsehood
 "that it is the *opposite* of what I actually said
 "I don't know whether you are deliberately lying"
 "you're just such a careless reader" 

As soon as you pointed out my mistake, I immediately 
acknowledged and corrected it [*4].  You continued 
with the outrage and attacks on my character.

Bad faith in my part indeed.  The nice thing about 
email is that there exists a record that anyone can 
refer to if they want to discern the truth.

----
[*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/e6Xs56paZSoJ
[*2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/yDJJER6EJiIJ
[*3] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/SwMcqPLMwjgJ
[*4] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/7fLfIxBG4UUJ

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

#58410

Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
> 
> Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
> a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
> good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

Why can't you? I think you should give Rurpy more credit. If you want
this to make a welcoming community, then you should take such remarks
seriously. You should realise that you are not in a good position to
evaluate how your words come accross because you rely on the knowledge
of your intentions. Others who don't know your intentions can reasonably
get a very different understanding of what you intended.

> I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate the 
> subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments about the 
> precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in good faith, 
> they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens of posts.

So it seems you want this to be a welcoming community, as long as we don't
propose you to change your own behaviour. As soon as it is suggested you may
have to adapt your own behaviour in order to make this a welcoming community,
threads where this sort of things are discusseed in, no longer appeal to
you?

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

#58414

Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> writes:

> Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> > I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate
> > the subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments
> > about the precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in
> > good faith, they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens
> > of posts.
>
> So it seems you want this to be a welcoming community, as long as we
> don't propose you to change your own behaviour.

We aim to be a community that always welcomes diversity of people. This
does not entail always welcoming bad behaviour.

Steven is aiming to change his behaviour to make the community more
welcoming of people: he is aiming to cease contributing to threads where
the bad behaviour is an interminable discussion of tone and pedantry.
This is, as I see it, wholly compatible with making the community more
welcoming to people, by reducing the volume of such threads.

-- 
 \       Eccles: “I just saw the Earth through the clouds!”  Lew: “Did |
  `\      it look round?”  Eccles: “Yes, but I don't think it saw me.” |
_o__)                            —The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ |
Ben Finney

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

#58433

Op 03-11-13 23:11, Ben Finney schreef:
> Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> writes:
> 
>> Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
>>> I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate
>>> the subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments
>>> about the precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in
>>> good faith, they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens
>>> of posts.
>>
>> So it seems you want this to be a welcoming community, as long as we
>> don't propose you to change your own behaviour.
> 
> We aim to be a community that always welcomes diversity of people. This
> does not entail always welcoming bad behaviour.

But the question was whether some behaviour of steve himself was
contributing or in conflict with his aim.

> Steven is aiming to change his behaviour to make the community more
> welcoming of people: he is aiming to cease contributing to threads where
> the bad behaviour is an interminable discussion of tone and pedantry.
> This is, as I see it, wholly compatible with making the community more
> welcoming to people, by reducing the volume of such threads.

Sorry but from my side that sounds awefully convenient. When the
behaviour of others is questionable, they undermine the welcoming
atmosphere of the community. When Steves behaviour is questionable the
others are behaving badly by discussing tone and pedantry.

This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
being set up.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

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

#58434

Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> writes:

> This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
> being set up.

If you see a discussion as a zero-sum game – like a coin toss, where one
person's win can only be at the expense of someone else's loss – then I
fear this isn't going to be productive.

Suffice it to say that any number of parties can be behaving badly in a
discussion. If one person declares their choice not to continue an
unhelpful discussion, that does does not mean that they declare victory,
nor that they declare defeat. Discussions that are about “winning” or
“losing” the discussion are pretty futile in this forum anyway.

-- 
 \          “The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice |
  `\                                         within.” —Mohandas Gandhi |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

#58437

Op 04-11-13 10:07, Ben Finney schreef:
> Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> writes:
> 
>> This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
>> being set up.
> 
> If you see a discussion as a zero-sum game – like a coin toss, where one
> person's win can only be at the expense of someone else's loss – then I
> fear this isn't going to be productive.

I don't see it that way. My point is that Steve seems to work hard
creating the impression that he does see it that way. My impression
is that Steve is not that much interrested in a welcoming group as
he is interrested in a group where he himself feels at ease. Where
the two coincide, he argues for a welcoming group. Where the two
may be in conflict, he is more interested in defending his behaviour
or brushing it of than he is in contributing to a welcoming group.

> Suffice it to say that any number of parties can be behaving badly in a
> discussion. If one person declares their choice not to continue an
> unhelpful discussion, that does does not mean that they declare victory,
> nor that they declare defeat. Discussions that are about “winning” or
> “losing” the discussion are pretty futile in this forum anyway.

Unhelpful for whom? My thought is that a welcoming group is able to
resolve or a least discuss conflicts. If you declare the discussion
not helpful and see that as a reason not to continue with it, you
are IMO not contributing to such a group. With the numerous times
Steve told the rest about how he wants a welcoming group, he doesn't
seem that much interrested in actually doing an effort himself.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web