Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #41834 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-03-26 08:51 +1100 |
| Last post | 2013-03-28 12:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 206 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 08:51 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 23:35 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 17:26 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 13:38 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 01:08 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 16:41 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 03:54 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-26 14:24 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 11:50 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 06:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 13:44 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-26 20:50 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 21:08 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 08:14 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-03-27 12:10 +1300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-03-26 19:19 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-26 21:26 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-03-26 17:28 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-03-26 23:14 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 07:52 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-26 17:00 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-26 21:31 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 00:20 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-26 18:31 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 11:51 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 01:47 +0000
flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-27 20:18 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 20:49 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 05:20 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 22:42 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 07:48 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-28 12:54 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-28 13:31 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-29 14:52 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-29 08:51 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-29 16:50 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-29 14:26 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-29 16:07 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 00:35 -0700
ASCII versus non-ASCII [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-31 08:22 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-31 13:55 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 22:33 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 23:52 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 16:57 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 08:14 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-01 08:15 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 06:11 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 17:02 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 17:07 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 04:20 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-04-01 18:53 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 06:28 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 13:28 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 07:35 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 22:38 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 22:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-02 10:43 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 00:24 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 19:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-02 08:35 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 02:24 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 10:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:58 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 06:42 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-02 14:03 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 15:39 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 16:02 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 16:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 10:08 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-04-02 17:33 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 23:40 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-02 08:09 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 15:12 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 16:03 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-02 08:17 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 09:57 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:22 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:50 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2013-04-03 00:52 +0200
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 02:20 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 13:44 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 14:31 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 15:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 22:11 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:22 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:28 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 00:38 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 00:10 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 19:15 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:25 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 00:34 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 05:32 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-04-03 02:19 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 17:27 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:25 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 17:29 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:52 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:06 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 18:24 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 18:37 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:07 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 19:22 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 06:20 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 22:05 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 07:52 -0400
Sorting [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Sorting [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 11:00 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:30 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 13:51 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-04 09:58 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 07:53 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 19:02 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:08 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 12:27 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:43 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 01:17 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 15:07 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 08:57 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 12:09 +0300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 07:24 +1000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-06 14:58 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 01:29 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 19:58 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-06 22:18 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:22 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 08:29 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:00 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 11:02 +0300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-07 16:14 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 15:02 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:38 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 17:43 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 08:55 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 23:39 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 20:49 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 09:10 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-03 10:09 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 20:46 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:53 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-02 20:28 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 14:56 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 20:54 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 roy@panix.com (Roy Smith) - 2013-04-01 16:31 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 00:35 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 21:22 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-28 13:23 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-27 23:12 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 02:03 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Foote <ian@feete.org> - 2013-03-28 09:36 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-28 23:11 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 13:01 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 07:12 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 01:38 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 08:14 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 02:21 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 08:45 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-28 12:01 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:11 -0600
Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 00:39 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 11:54 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 02:37 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 13:44 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 00:11 -0600
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 00:22 -0600
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> - 2013-03-29 23:05 +0100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-29 01:03 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 12:10 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-29 02:00 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 03:16 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:01 -0600
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 14:34 +1100
unicode and the FSR [was: Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-28 21:56 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 16:33 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 16:46 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-28 14:51 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 14:57 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 02:07 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 09:47 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 21:30 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 06:34 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:33 -0600
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 09:55 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 04:13 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:48 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 04:55 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 13:26 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 08:45 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-28 19:12 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-03-28 13:29 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:11 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:33 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-28 21:50 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-03-28 14:52 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-03-28 19:53 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 11:03 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-29 00:15 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:40 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-03-28 16:04 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-03-28 16:04 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-28 12:39 +0000
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25522028-49d3-477b-b5e0-f0c1e3a6d3cf@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41951 |
On 26 mar, 22:08, Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > I think we all agree that jmf is a character. > ------ The characters are also "intrisic characteristics" of a group in the Group Theory. If you are not a mathematician, but eg a scientist in need of these characters, they are available in "precalculated" tables, one shorly calls ... "Tables of characters" ! (My booklet of the tables is titled "Tables for Group Theory") Example in chemistry, mainly "quantum chemistry": Group Theory and its Application to Chemistry http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Symmetry/Group_Theory%3A_Application (Copied link from Firefox). jmf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 07:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3775.1364331132.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #41947 |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:44 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 mar, 20:03, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:50 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 25 mar, 22:51, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The Python 3 merge of int and long has effectively penalized >> >> small-number arithmetic by removing an optimization. As we've seen >> >> from PEP 393 strings (jmf aside), there can be huge benefits from >> >> having a single type with multiple representations internally ... >> >> > ------ >> >> > A character is not an integer (short form). >> >> So? >> >> ChrisA > > A character is not an integer. Yes, I heard you the first time. And I repeat: A needle pulling thread? You have not made any actual, uhh, _point_. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-26 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3782.1364342459.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #41947 |
In article <kit1kg$g2u$1@ger.gmane.org>, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > But you are an idiot. I repeat the friendly reminder I posted a few weeks ago and I'll be a little less oblique: please avoid gratuitous personal attacks here. It reflects badly on the group and especially on those people making them. We can disagree strongly about technical opinions without resorting to such. On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:13:16 -0700, I posted: > A friendly reminder that this forum is for general discussion and > questions about Python. > > "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion, and > the group is even fairly tolerant of off-topic digressions; there have > been entertaining discussions of topics such as floating point, good > software design, and other programming languages such as Lisp and Forth." > > But ... > > "Rudeness and personal attacks, even in reaction to blatant flamebait, > are strongly frowned upon. People may strongly disagree on an issue, but > usually discussion remains civil. In case of an actual flamebait > posting, you can ignore it, quietly plonk the offending poster in your > killfile or mail filters, or write a sharp but still-polite response, > but at all costs resist the urge to flame back." > > http://www.python.org/community/lists/ > > It's up to all of us to help keep this group/list a place where people > enjoy participating, without fear of gratuitous personal sniping. > Thanks! -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-26 21:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3364b54c-3547-4f14-be98-69e932da045e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41965 |
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:00:43 PM UTC-6, Ned Deily wrote: > In article <kit1kg$g2u$1@ger.gmane.org>, > Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > But you are an idiot. > > I repeat the friendly reminder I posted a few weeks ago and I'll be a > little less oblique: please avoid gratuitous personal attacks here. It > reflects badly on the group and especially on those people making them. > We can disagree strongly about technical opinions without resorting to > such. >[..] +1, thank you for posting that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3784.1364343589.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #41947 |
On 27/03/2013 00:00, Ned Deily wrote: > In article <kit1kg$g2u$1@ger.gmane.org>, > Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> But you are an idiot. > > I repeat the friendly reminder I posted a few weeks ago and I'll be a > little less oblique: please avoid gratuitous personal attacks here. It > reflects badly on the group and especially on those people making them. > We can disagree strongly about technical opinions without resorting to > such. > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:13:16 -0700, I posted: >> A friendly reminder that this forum is for general discussion and >> questions about Python. >> >> "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion, and >> the group is even fairly tolerant of off-topic digressions; there have >> been entertaining discussions of topics such as floating point, good >> software design, and other programming languages such as Lisp and Forth." >> >> But ... >> >> "Rudeness and personal attacks, even in reaction to blatant flamebait, >> are strongly frowned upon. People may strongly disagree on an issue, but >> usually discussion remains civil. In case of an actual flamebait >> posting, you can ignore it, quietly plonk the offending poster in your >> killfile or mail filters, or write a sharp but still-polite response, >> but at all costs resist the urge to flame back." >> >> http://www.python.org/community/lists/ >> >> It's up to all of us to help keep this group/list a place where people >> enjoy participating, without fear of gratuitous personal sniping. >> Thanks! > I suggest you spend more time telling the troll that he's a troll and less time moaning at me. -- If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-26 18:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3790.1364347927.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #41947 |
In article <kitdqr$4m4$2@ger.gmane.org>, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 27/03/2013 00:00, Ned Deily wrote: [...] > > I repeat the friendly reminder I posted a few weeks ago and I'll be a > > little less oblique: please avoid gratuitous personal attacks here. It > > reflects badly on the group and especially on those people making them. > > We can disagree strongly about technical opinions without resorting to > > such. > > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:13:16 -0700, I posted: > >> A friendly reminder that this forum is for general discussion and > >> questions about Python. > >> > >> "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion, and > >> the group is even fairly tolerant of off-topic digressions; there have > >> been entertaining discussions of topics such as floating point, good > >> software design, and other programming languages such as Lisp and Forth." > >> > >> But ... > >> > >> "Rudeness and personal attacks, even in reaction to blatant flamebait, > >> are strongly frowned upon. People may strongly disagree on an issue, but > >> usually discussion remains civil. In case of an actual flamebait > >> posting, you can ignore it, quietly plonk the offending poster in your > >> killfile or mail filters, or write a sharp but still-polite response, > >> but at all costs resist the urge to flame back." > >> > >> http://www.python.org/community/lists/ > >> > >> It's up to all of us to help keep this group/list a place where people > >> enjoy participating, without fear of gratuitous personal sniping. > >> Thanks! > I suggest you spend more time telling the troll that he's a troll and > less time moaning at me. I suggest you re-read the group charter. He may be saying things that most of us disagree with but he does it without personal attacks. He's made his position clear and it doesn't seem likely to change. Ignoring, plonking, or polite responses are all fine responses. Flaming is not. That's not the kind of group most of us want to see. -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 11:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3805.1364385073.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #41947 |
On 27/03/2013 01:31, Ned Deily wrote: > In article <kitdqr$4m4$2@ger.gmane.org>, > Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 27/03/2013 00:00, Ned Deily wrote: > [...] >>> I repeat the friendly reminder I posted a few weeks ago and I'll be a >>> little less oblique: please avoid gratuitous personal attacks here. It >>> reflects badly on the group and especially on those people making them. >>> We can disagree strongly about technical opinions without resorting to >>> such. >>> >>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:13:16 -0700, I posted: >>>> A friendly reminder that this forum is for general discussion and >>>> questions about Python. >>>> >>>> "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion, and >>>> the group is even fairly tolerant of off-topic digressions; there have >>>> been entertaining discussions of topics such as floating point, good >>>> software design, and other programming languages such as Lisp and Forth." >>>> >>>> But ... >>>> >>>> "Rudeness and personal attacks, even in reaction to blatant flamebait, >>>> are strongly frowned upon. People may strongly disagree on an issue, but >>>> usually discussion remains civil. In case of an actual flamebait >>>> posting, you can ignore it, quietly plonk the offending poster in your >>>> killfile or mail filters, or write a sharp but still-polite response, >>>> but at all costs resist the urge to flame back." >>>> >>>> http://www.python.org/community/lists/ >>>> >>>> It's up to all of us to help keep this group/list a place where people >>>> enjoy participating, without fear of gratuitous personal sniping. >>>> Thanks! >> I suggest you spend more time telling the troll that he's a troll and >> less time moaning at me. > > I suggest you re-read the group charter. He may be saying things that > most of us disagree with but he does it without personal attacks. He's > made his position clear and it doesn't seem likely to change. Ignoring, > plonking, or polite responses are all fine responses. Flaming is not. > That's not the kind of group most of us want to see. > He's not going to change so neither am I. I also suggest you go and moan at Steven D'Aprano who called the idiot a liar. Although thinking about it, I prefer Steven's comment to my own as being more accurate. -- If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-28 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5153a12d$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #42007 |
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:51:07 +0000, Mark Lawrence defending an unproductive post flaming a troll: > He's not going to change so neither am I. "He's a troll disrupting the newsgroup, therefore I'm going to be a troll disrupting the newsgroup too, so nyah!!!" > I also suggest you go and moan at Steven D'Aprano who called the idiot a > liar. Although thinking about it, I prefer Steven's comment to my own > as being more accurate. Yes I did, I suggest you reflect on the difference in content between your post and mine, and why yours can be described as abusive flaming and mine shouldn't be. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 20:18 -0700 |
| Subject | flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3845.1364441182.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #42054 |
On 03/27/2013 06:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:51:07 +0000, Mark Lawrence defending an > unproductive post flaming a troll: I wouldn't call it unproductive -- a half-dozen amusing posts followed because of Mark's initial post, and they were a great relief from the tedium and (dare I say it?) idiocy of jmf's posts. >> He's not going to change so neither am I. > > "He's a troll disrupting the newsgroup, therefore I'm going to be a troll > disrupting the newsgroup too, so nyah!!!" So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get worked up about it. I find jmf's posts for more aggravating. >> I also suggest you go and moan at Steven D'Aprano who called the idiot a >> liar. Although thinking about it, I prefer Steven's comment to my own >> as being more accurate. > > Yes I did, I suggest you reflect on the difference in content between > your post and mine, and why yours can be described as abusive flaming and > mine shouldn't be. Mark's post was not, in my not-so-humble opinion, abusive. jmf's (again IMNSHO) was. Your post (Steven's) was possibly more accurate, but Mark's was more amusing, and generated more amusing responses. Clearly, jmf is not going to change his thread-hijacking unicode-whining behavior, whether faced with the cold rational responses or the hotter fed-up responses. So I guess what I'm saying is: Don't Feed The Trolls (Anyone!) ;) Of course, somebody still has to reply so a newcomer doesn't get taken in by him. Has anybody else thought that his last few responses are starting to sound bot'ish? -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 20:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <d2cc443a-e049-42ed-abc6-66b5ea600fe7@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42076 |
On Mar 28, 8:18 am, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > > So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get worked up about it. I > find jmf's posts for more aggravating. I support Ned's original gentle reminder -- Please be civil irrespective of surrounding nonsensical behavior. In particular "You are a liar" is as bad as "You are an idiot" The same statement can be made non-abusively thus: "... is not true because ..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-28 05:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <5153d313$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #42078 |
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:49:20 -0700, rusi wrote: > On Mar 28, 8:18 am, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> >> So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get >> worked up about it. I find jmf's posts for more aggravating. > > I support Ned's original gentle reminder -- Please be civil irrespective > of surrounding nonsensical behavior. > > In particular "You are a liar" is as bad as "You are an idiot" The same > statement can be made non-abusively thus: "... is not true because ..." I accept that criticism, even if I disagree with it. Does that make sense? I mean it in the sense that I accept that your opinion differs from mine. Politeness does not always trump honesty, and stating that somebody's statement "is not true because..." is not the same as stating that they are deliberately telling lies (rather than merely being mistaken or confused). The world is full of people who deliberately and in complete awareness of what they are doing lie in order to further their agenda, or for profit, or to feel good about themselves, or to harm others. There comes a time where politely ignoring the elephant in the room (the dirty, rotten, lying scoundrel of an elephant) and giving them the benefit of the doubt simply makes life worse for everyone except the liars. We all know this. Unless you've been living in a cave on the top of some mountain, we all know people whose relationship to the truth is, shall we say, rather bendy. And yet we collectively muddy the water and inject uncertainty into debate by politely going along with their lies, or at least treating them with dignity that they don't deserve, by treating them as at worst a matter of honest misunderstanding or even mere difference of opinion. As an Australian, I am constitutionally required to call a spade a bloody shovel at least twice a week, so I have no regrets. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-27 22:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <0b6be19c-ff11-4e24-a7dc-fec0af411393@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42100 |
On Mar 28, 10:20 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:49:20 -0700, rusi wrote: > > On Mar 28, 8:18 am, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > > >> So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get > >> worked up about it. I find jmf's posts for more aggravating. > > > I support Ned's original gentle reminder -- Please be civil irrespective > > of surrounding nonsensical behavior. > > > In particular "You are a liar" is as bad as "You are an idiot" The same > > statement can be made non-abusively thus: "... is not true because ..." > > I accept that criticism, even if I disagree with it. Does that make > sense? I mean it in the sense that I accept that your opinion differs > from mine. > > Politeness does not always trump honesty, and stating that somebody's > statement "is not true because..." is not the same as stating that they > are deliberately telling lies (rather than merely being mistaken or > confused). > > The world is full of people who deliberately and in complete awareness of > what they are doing lie in order to further their agenda, or for profit, > or to feel good about themselves, or to harm others. There comes a time > where politely ignoring the elephant in the room (the dirty, rotten, > lying scoundrel of an elephant) and giving them the benefit of the doubt > simply makes life worse for everyone except the liars. We all subscribe to legal systems that decide the undecidable; eg. A pulled out a gun and killed B. Was it murder, manslaughter, just a mistake, euthanasia? Any lawyer with experience knows that horrible mistakes happen in making these decisions; yet they (the judges) need to make them. For the purposes of the python list these ascriptions to personal motives are OT enough to be out of place. > > We all know this. Unless you've been living in a cave on the top of some > mountain, we all know people whose relationship to the truth is, shall we > say, rather bendy. And yet we collectively muddy the water and inject > uncertainty into debate by politely going along with their lies, or at > least treating them with dignity that they don't deserve, by treating > them as at worst a matter of honest misunderstanding or even mere > difference of opinion. > > As an Australian, I am constitutionally required to call a spade a bloody > shovel at least twice a week, so I have no regrets. If someone has got physically injured by the spade then its a bloody spade; else you are a bloody liar :-) Well… More seriously Ive never seen anyone -- cause or person -- aided by the use of excessively strong language. IOW I repeat my support for Ned's request: Ad hominiem attacks are not welcome, irrespective of the context/provocation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-28 07:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <5153f5ce$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #42101 |
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:42:18 -0700, rusi wrote:
> More seriously Ive never seen anyone -- cause or person -- aided by
> the use of excessively strong language.
Of course not. By definition, if it helps, it wasn't *excessively* strong
language.
> IOW I repeat my support for Ned's request: Ad hominiem attacks are not
> welcome, irrespective of the context/provocation.
Insults are not ad hominem attacks.
"You sir, are a bounder and a cad. Furthermore, your
argument is wrong, because of reasons."
may very well be an insult, but it also may be correct, and the reasons
logically valid.
"Your argument is wrong, because you are a bounder
and a cad."
is an ad hominem fallacy, because even bounders and cads may tell the
truth occasionally, or be correct by accident.
I find it interesting that nobody has yet felt the need to defend JMF,
and tell me I was factually incorrect about him (as opposed to merely
impolite or mean-spirited).
In any case, I don't want this to be specifically about any one person,
so let's move away from JMF. I disagree that hostile language is *always*
inappropriate, although I agree that it is *usually* inappropriate.
Although even that depends on what you define as "hostile" -- I would
much prefer that people confronted me for being (supposedly) dishonest
than silently shunning me without giving me any way to respond or correct
either my behaviour or their (mis)apprehensions. Quite frankly, I think
that the passive-aggressive silent treatment (kill-filing) is MUCH more
hostile and mean-spirited[1] than honest, respectful, direct criticism,
even when that criticism is about character ("you sir are a lying
scoundrel").
I treat people the way I hope to be treated. As galling as it would be to
be accused of lying, I would rather that you called me a liar to my face
and gave me the opportunity to respond, than for you to ignore everything
I said.
I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, productive
community where everyone is welcome. But some people simply cannot or
will not behave in ways that are compatible with those community values.
There are some people whom we *do not want here* -- spoilers and messers,
vandals and spammers and cheats and liars and trolls and crackpots of all
sorts. We only disagree as to the best way to make it clear to them that
they are not welcome so long as they continue their behaviour.
[1] Although sadly, given the reality of communication on the Internet,
sometimes kill-filing is the least-worst option.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-28 12:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <fca3aa1f-86a7-4c96-88c2-893ec95ba306@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42103 |
On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:42:18 -0700, rusi wrote: >> More seriously Ive never seen anyone -- cause or person -- aided by >> the use of excessively strong language. > > Of course not. By definition, if it helps, it wasn't *excessively* strong > language. For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors of others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic. Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong. That is the case when language less strong would be equally or more helpful. >> IOW I repeat my support for Ned's request: Ad hominiem attacks are not >> welcome, irrespective of the context/provocation. > > Insults are not ad hominem attacks. Insults may or may not be ad hominem attacks. There is nothing mutually exclusive about those terms. > "You sir, are a bounder and a cad. Furthermore, your > argument is wrong, because of reasons." > > may very well be an insult, but it also may be correct, and the reasons > logically valid. Those are two different statements. The first is an ad hominem attack and is not welcome here. The second is an acceptable response. > "Your argument is wrong, because you are a bounder > and a cad." > > is an ad hominem fallacy, because even bounders and cads may tell the > truth occasionally, or be correct by accident. That it is a fallacy does not mean it is not also an attack. > I find it interesting that nobody has yet felt the need to defend JMF, > and tell me I was factually incorrect about him (as opposed to merely > impolite or mean-spirited). Nothing "interesting" about it at all. Most of us (perhaps unlike you) are not interested in discussing the personal characteristics of posters here (in contrast to discussing the technical opinions they post). Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by someone interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, so most sensible people here likely would not bite. >[...] > I would rather that you called me a liar to my face > and gave me the opportunity to respond, than for you to ignore everything > I said. Even if you personally would prefer someone to respond by calling you a liar, your personal preferences do not form a basis for desirable posting behavior here. But again you're creating a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two choices. A third choice is neither ignore you nor call you a liar but to factually point out where you are wrong, or (if it is a matter of opinion) why one holds a different opinion. That was the point Ned Deily was making I believe. > I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, productive > community where everyone is welcome. I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place to develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal duels, instigate arguments, etc. That can be true of regulars here as well as drive-by posters. > But some people simply cannot or > will not behave in ways that are compatible with those community values. > There are some people whom we *do not want here* In other words, everyone is NOT welcome. > -- spoilers and messers, > vandals and spammers and cheats and liars and trolls and crackpots of all > sorts. Where those terms are defined by you and a handful of other voracious posters. "Troll" in particular is often used to mean someone who disagrees with the borg mind here, or who says anything negative about Python, or who due attitude or lack of full English fluency do not express themselves in a sufficiently submissive way. > We only disagree as to the best way to make it clear to them that > they are not welcome so long as they continue their behaviour. No, we disagree on who fits those definitions and even how tolerant we are to those who do fit the definitions. The policing that you and a handful of other self-appointed net-cops try to do is far more obnoxious that the original posts are. > [1] Although sadly, given the reality of communication on the Internet, > sometimes kill-filing is the least-worst option. Please, please, killfile jmfauth, ranting rick, xaw lee and anyone else you don't like so that the rest of us can be spared the orders of magnitude larger, more disruptive and more offensive posts generated by your (plural) responses to them. Believe or not, most of the rest of us here are smart enough to form our own opinions of such posters without you and the other c.l.p truthsquad members telling us what to think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-28 13:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3914.1364503941.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #42186 |
On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: > On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:42:18 -0700, rusi wrote: > For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors > of others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic. > > Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong. > That is the case when language less strong would be > equally or more helpful. It can also be the case when language less strong would be useless. > Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively > emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by > someone interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, > so most sensible people here likely would not bite. Non-objective? If today poster B says X, and tomorrow poster B says s/he was unaware of X until just now, is not "liar" a reasonable conclusion? >> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, productive >> community where everyone is welcome. > > I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place > to develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal > duels, instigate arguments, etc. That can be true of regulars > here as well as drive-by posters. > >> But some people simply cannot or >> will not behave in ways that are compatible with those community values. >> There are some people whom we *do not want here* > > In other words, everyone is NOT welcome. Correct. Do you not agree? >> -- spoilers and messers, >> vandals and spammers and cheats and liars and trolls and crackpots of all >> sorts. > > Where those terms are defined by you and a handful of other > voracious posters. "Troll" in particular is often used to > mean someone who disagrees with the borg mind here, or who > says anything negative about Python, or who due attitude or > lack of full English fluency do not express themselves in > a sufficiently submissive way. I cannot speak for the borg mind, but for myself a troll is anyone who continually posts rants (such as RR & XL) or who continuously hijacks threads to talk about their pet peeve (such as jmf). >> We only disagree as to the best way to make it clear to them that >> they are not welcome so long as they continue their behaviour. > > No, we disagree on who fits those definitions and even > how tolerant we are to those who do fit the definitions. > The policing that you and a handful of other self-appointed > net-cops try to do is far more obnoxious that the original > posts are. I completely disagree, and I am grateful to those who bother to take the time to continually point out the errors from those posters and to warn newcomers that those posters should not be believed. > Believe or not, most of the rest of us here are smart enough to > form our own opinions of such posters without you and the other > c.l.p truthsquad members telling us what to think. If one of my first few posts on c.l.p netted a response from a troll I would greatly appreciate a reply from one of the regulars saying that was a troll so I didn't waste time trying to use whatever they said, or be concerned that the language I was trying to use and learn was horribly flawed. If the "truthsquad" posts are so offensive to you, why don't you kill-file them? -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-29 14:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <kj49ro$c8m$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #42191 |
On 2013-03-28, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> I cannot speak for the borg mind, but for myself a troll is anyone
> who continually posts rants (such as RR & XL) or who continuously
> hijacks threads to talk about their pet peeve (such as jmf).
Assuming jmf actually does care deeply and genuinely about Unicode
implementations, and his postings reflect his actual position/opinion,
then he's not a troll. Traditionally, a troll is someone who posts
statements purely to provoke a response -- they don't really care
about the topic and often don't believe what they're posting.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! BARBARA STANWYCK makes
at me nervous!!
gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-29 08:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3954.1364572887.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #42249 |
On 03/29/2013 07:52 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-03-28, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > >> I cannot speak for the borg mind, but for myself a troll is anyone >> who continually posts rants (such as RR & XL) or who continuously >> hijacks threads to talk about their pet peeve (such as jmf). > > Assuming jmf actually does care deeply and genuinely about Unicode > implementations, and his postings reflect his actual position/opinion, > then he's not a troll. Traditionally, a troll is someone who posts > statements purely to provoke a response -- they don't really care > about the topic and often don't believe what they're posting. Even if he does care deeply and genuinely he still hijacks threads, still refuses the challenges to try X or Y and report back, and (ISTM) still refuses to learn. If that's not trollish behavior, what is it? FWIW I don't think he does care deeply and genuinely (at least not genuinely) or he would do more than whine about micro benchmarks and make sweeping statements like "nobody here understands unicode" (paraphrased). -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-29 16:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <kj4goa$hd2$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #42253 |
On 2013-03-29, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 07:52 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2013-03-28, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot speak for the borg mind, but for myself a troll is anyone
>>> who continually posts rants (such as RR & XL) or who continuously
>>> hijacks threads to talk about their pet peeve (such as jmf).
>>
>> Assuming jmf actually does care deeply and genuinely about Unicode
>> implementations, and his postings reflect his actual
>> position/opinion, then he's not a troll. Traditionally, a troll is
>> someone who posts statements purely to provoke a response -- they
>> don't really care about the topic and often don't believe what
>> they're posting.
>
> Even if he does care deeply and genuinely he still hijacks threads,
> still refuses the challenges to try X or Y and report back, and
> (ISTM) still refuses to learn.
>
> If that's not trollish behavior, what is it?
He might indeed be trolling. But what defines a troll is
motive/intent, not behavior. Those behaviors are all common in
non-troll net.kooks. Maybe I'm being a bit too "old-school Usenet",
but being rude, ignorant (even stubbornly so), wrong, or irrational
doesn't make you a troll. What makes you a troll is intent. If you
don't actually care about the topic but are posting because you enjoy
poking people with a stick to watch them jump and howl, then you're a
troll.
> FWIW I don't think he does care deeply and genuinely (at least not
> genuinely) or he would do more than whine about micro benchmarks and
> make sweeping statements like "nobody here understands unicode"
> (paraphrased).
Perhaps he doesn't care about Unicode or Python performance. If so
he's putting on a pretty good act -- if he's a troll, he's a good one
and he's running a long game. Personally, I don't think he's a troll.
I think he's obsessed with what he percieves as an issue with Python's
string implementation. IOW, if he's a troll, he's got me fooled.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It's a hole all the
at way to downtown Burbank!
gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rurpy@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-29 14:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <11ef1d36-0783-4cb2-b29f-9ae573ed7e47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42191 |
On 03/28/2013 02:31 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: >> On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors of >> others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic. >> >> Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong. That >> is the case when language less strong would be equally or more >> helpful. > > It can also be the case when language less strong would be useless. I don't get your point. I was pointing out the fallacy in Steven's logic (which you cut). How is your statement relevant to that? >> Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively >> emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by someone >> interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, so most >> sensible people here likely would not bite. > > Non-objective? If today poster B says X, and tomorrow poster B says > s/he was unaware of X until just now, is not "liar" a reasonable > conclusion? Of course not. People forget what they posted previously, change their mind, don't express what they intended perfectly, sometimes express a complex thought that the reader inaccurately perceives as contradictory, don't realize themselves that their thinking is contradictory, ... And of course who among us *not* a "liar" since we all lie from time to time. Lying involves intent to deceive. I haven't been following jmfauth's claims since they are not of interest to me, but going back and quickly looking at the posts that triggered the "liar" and "idiot" posts, I did not see anything that made me think that jmfauth was not sincere in his beliefs. Being wrong and being sincere are not exclusive. Nor did Steven even try to justify the "liar" claim. As to Mark Lawrence, that seemed like a pure "I don't like you" insult whose proper place is /dev/null. Even if the odds are 80% that the person is lying, why risk your own credibility by making a nearly impossible to substantiate claim? Someone may praise some company's product constantly online and be discovered to be a salesperson at that company. Most of the time you would be right to accuse the person of dishonesty. But I knew a person who was very young and naive, who really believed in the product and truly didn't see anything wrong in doing that. That doesn't make it good behavior but those who claimed he was hiding his identity for personal gain were wrong (at least as far as I could tell, knowing the person personally.) Just post the facts and let people draw their own conclusions; that's better than making aggressive and offensive claims than can never be proven. Calling people liars or idiots not only damages the reputation of the Python community in general [*1] but hurts your own credibility as well, since any sensible reader will wonder if other opinions you post are more influenced by your emotions than by your intelligence. >>> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, >>> productive community where everyone is welcome. >> >> I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place to >> develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal duels, >> instigate arguments, etc. That can be true of regulars here as >> well as drive-by posters. >> >>> But some people simply cannot or will not behave in ways that are >>> compatible with those community values. There are some people >>> whom we *do not want here* >> >> In other words, everyone is NOT welcome. > > Correct. Do you not agree? Don't ask me, ask Steven. He was the one who wrote two sentences earlier, "...we want a...community where everyone is welcome." I'll snip the rest of your post because it is your opinions and I've already said why I disagree. Most people are smart enough to make their own evaluations of posters here and if they are not, and reject python based on what they read from a single poster who obviously has "strong" views, then perhaps that's for the best. That possibility (which I think is very close to zero) is a tiny price to pay to avoid all the hostility and noise. ---- [*1] See for example the blog post at http://joepie91.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-python-documentation-is-bad-and-you-should-feel-bad/ which was recently discussed in this list and in which the author wrote, "the community around Python is one of the most hostile and unhelpful communities around any programming-related topic that I have ever seen".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-29 16:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3975.1364598987.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #42281 |
On 03/29/2013 02:26 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: > On 03/28/2013 02:31 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors of >>> others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic. >>> >>> Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong. That >>> is the case when language less strong would be equally or more >>> helpful. >> >> It can also be the case when language less strong would be useless. > > I don't get your point. > I was pointing out the fallacy in Steven's logic (which you cut). > How is your statement relevant to that? Ah. I thought you were saying that in all cases helpful strong language would be even more helpful if less strong. >>> Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively >>> emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by someone >>> interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, so most >>> sensible people here likely would not bite. >> >> Non-objective? If today poster B says X, and tomorrow poster B says >> s/he was unaware of X until just now, is not "liar" a reasonable >> conclusion? > > Of course not. People forget what they posted previously, change > their mind, don't express what they intended perfectly, sometimes > express a complex thought that the reader inaccurately perceives > as contradictory, don't realize themselves that their thinking > is contradictory, ... I agree, which is why I resisted my own impulse to call him a liar; however, he has been harping on this subject for months now, so I would be suprised if he actually was surprised and had forgotten... > Lying involves intent to deceive. I haven't been following jmfauth's > claims since they are not of interest to me, but going back and quickly > looking at the posts that triggered the "liar" and "idiot" posts, I > did not see anything that made me think that jmfauth was not sincere > in his beliefs. Being wrong and being sincere are not exclusive. > Nor did Steven even try to justify the "liar" claim. As to Mark > Lawrence, that seemed like a pure "I don't like you" insult whose > proper place is /dev/null. After months of jmf's antagonist posts, I don't blame them. >>>> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, >>>> productive community where everyone is welcome. >>> >>> I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place to >>> develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal duels, >>> instigate arguments, etc. That can be true of regulars here as >>> well as drive-by posters. >>> >>>> But some people simply cannot or will not behave in ways that are >>>> compatible with those community values. There are some people >>>> whom we *do not want here* >>> >>> In other words, everyone is NOT welcome. >> >> Correct. Do you not agree? > > Don't ask me, ask Steven. He was the one who wrote two sentences > earlier, "...we want a...community where everyone is welcome." Ah, right -- missed that! -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web