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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #18323 > unrolled thread

Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages

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: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-01-02 13:20 +0100
    Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-03 06:45 +1100
      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 15:56 -0500
        Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-03 08:59 +1100
          Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-03 08:21 +0000
            Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-04 08:57 +1100
              Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-04 01:37 +0000
                Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-04 12:54 +1100
                  Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-04 02:04 +0000
                    Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-04 13:42 +1100
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2012-01-03 19:34 -0800
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Rami Chowdhury <rami.chowdhury@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:49 +0000
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 11:39 -0700
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:28 -0700
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 13:08 -0700
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 20:51 +0000
                      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 21:26 -0800
                  Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 13:37 +1100
                    Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 21:22 -0800
                  Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2012-01-04 03:06 +0000
                  Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 14:31 +1100
          Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-01-03 09:47 +0100
            Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-01-04 09:11 +1100
      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 22:43 +0000
      Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 19:10 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18323 — Re: Spamming PyPI with stupid packages

Felinx Lee wrote:

> I have removed those packages (girlfriend and others) from PyPI forever, I
> apologize for that.

The thought police has won :(

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18344

Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> writes:

> Felinx Lee wrote:
>
> > I have removed those packages (girlfriend and others) from PyPI
> > forever, I apologize for that.
>
> The thought police has won :(

Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free to
howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a platform
to amplify anyone's prejudice.

-- 
 \             “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or |
  `\    anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.” —Albert |
_o__)                                    Einstein, unsent letter, 1955 |
Ben Finney

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

#18348

> Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free to
> howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a platform
> to amplify anyone's prejudice.

A module named "girlfriend" won't amplify anyone's prejudice. It is,
at that point, just a joke. The punchline is "import girlfriend", and
the joke makes fun of geeky losers, not women.

But, hey, inertia. As long as we're trying to make this dude get rid
of the offensive part, might as well get rid of the rest too. Why not
make him get rid of everything he's written, too? Woo, party time!

-- Devin

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> writes:
>
>> Felinx Lee wrote:
>>
>> > I have removed those packages (girlfriend and others) from PyPI
>> > forever, I apologize for that.
>>
>> The thought police has won :(
>
> Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free to
> howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a platform
> to amplify anyone's prejudice.
>
> --
>  \             “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or |
>  `\    anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.” —Albert |
> _o__)                                    Einstein, unsent letter, 1955 |
> Ben Finney
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

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

#18351

Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> writes:

> > Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free
> > to howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a
> > platform to amplify anyone's prejudice.
>
> A module named "girlfriend" won't amplify anyone's prejudice. It is,
> at that point, just a joke.

I agree that it's a joke. It is a joke at the expense of women:
promoting the view that, like a car or a house (the other modules that
were part of the joke), a girlfriend is a possession to be acquired.

> The punchline is "import girlfriend"

Yes, exactly.

The next time someone asks why the ratio of women becoming programmers
is disproportionately low, please recall episodes where men here give
defenses of jokes that objectify women.

Instead, the more we marginalise sexism and reject normalising it
through sexist jokes, the safer this community can become for anyone of
any sex.

-- 
 \       “If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting |
  `\   them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good |
_o__)                                            reason.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney

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

#18383

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:59:53 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> > Nonsense. Felinx is free to make sexist jokes, and others are free to
>> > howl him down when he does so. PyPI has no obligation to be a
>> > platform to amplify anyone's prejudice.
>>
>> A module named "girlfriend" won't amplify anyone's prejudice. It is, at
>> that point, just a joke.
> 
> I agree that it's a joke. It is a joke at the expense of women:
> promoting the view that, like a car or a house (the other modules that
> were part of the joke), a girlfriend is a possession to be acquired.

How do you get that reading?

Yes, in the English language, we talk about "getting a girlfriend", but 
we also talk about "getting a boyfriend". Does that imply that *men* are 
nothing more than a possession to be acquired? Clearly not. There is no 
implication re social status -- we can talk about "the nation has finally 
got a king" without any implication that kings are low status, mere 
"possessions" to be acquired. 

If there is anything "offensive" about the "joke", it is the implication 
that women are shallow creatures only interested in men for their earning 
potential. But why should that be more offensive than the idea that men 
are so desperate for a relationship that they are happy to hand over 
their earnings to anything female that pretends an interest in them? The 
joke cuts both ways.

It is the nature of jokes to exaggerate character traits. In real life, 
many women *are* interested in the earning potential of men, not 
exclusive of all other factors of course, and many men *are* push-overs 
to any gold-digger with a pretty face. But neither is a universal trait: 
they are mere generalisations. 

There are exceptions, of course, people are complex and reality doesn't 
fit nicely into the pigeon holes we invent, but generalities do apply in 
general. We're lying to ourselves if we don't acknowledge the truth that 
in general the status of a man depends on his wealth and power and that 
of a woman on her fecundity, looks and youth. Acknowledging that reality 
is no more sexist than acknowledging the reality that on average men are 
bigger than women and that women can conceive but men can't.


Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But ... you can't HAVE babies!
Stan: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the 
fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

- Life of Brian



-- 
Steven

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

#18456

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> The joke cuts both ways.

This is the Just World fallacy: you're implying that, because the same
joke can be applied equally well to women or men, that therefore it is
equally harmful. The fallacy is to ignore the fact that the playing
field is not level.

Yes, that same joke can semantically be applied equally to men. But it
is disproportionately harmful to women, because there is a significantly
greater level of sexism against women already. Apologetics defending
sexist jokes against women delay the time when women can feel that they
are as free to participate in this community as men.

Actions appropriate for a level playing field are not appropriate in our
case.

-- 
 \       “We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the |
  `\       sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his |
_o__)     wife is beautiful and his children smart.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney

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

#18476

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:57:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> 
>> The joke cuts both ways.
> 
> This is the Just World fallacy: you're implying that, because the same
> joke can be applied equally well to women or men, that therefore it is
> equally harmful. The fallacy is to ignore the fact that the playing
> field is not level.

I'm not ignoring the fact of an unequal playing field. (The playing field 
is uneven in different directions in different places.)


> Yes, that same joke can semantically be applied equally to men. But it
> is disproportionately harmful to women, 

You're making an assumption there that I don't accept. There is no 
evidence that it is harmful to *anyone*, men or women.

And not just because "it's only a joke" -- jokes are a wonderfully 
powerful weapon, and like all weapons, they can be used for good or evil. 
E.g. the Klu Klux Klan lost a lot of influence when the US media (and in 
particular the Superman television series) made them into a laughing 
stock. On the flip-side, Irish jokes have been both a reaction to Irish 
terrorism and a way of depowering the Irish.

But if jokes are weapons, this particular joke is not only a water 
pistol, but it's a *broken* water pistol.

There are barriers to women becoming programmers. Some of those barriers 
come from men, others come from other women, and some are internal to the 
specific woman in question. One might even be able to list some of those 
barriers. But if you think that it is self-evident that childish jokes 
about working hard in order to attract a girlfriend is one of those 
barriers, then I have to disagree strongly.

[...]
> Apologetics defending sexist jokes against women

In what way is this a sexist joke against women?

Normally, one can point out the victim of sexist or racist jokes: it 
makes a class of people out to be a laughing stock, incompetent or stupid 
or wicked. That is not the case here, unless we think that preferring a 
hard-worker and good provider over a lazy deadbeat is a sign of moral 
degeneracy (that is, "gold-digger" versus "wants the best for herself and 
her children").


-- 
Steven

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

#18477

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:57:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
> > 
> >> The joke cuts both ways.
> > 
> > The fallacy is to ignore the fact that the playing field is not
> > level.
>
> I'm not ignoring the fact of an unequal playing field. (The playing
> field is uneven in different directions in different places.)

Your “the joke cuts both ways” is of no matter, then.

> > Yes, that same joke can semantically be applied equally to men. But
> > it is disproportionately harmful to women,
>
> You're making an assumption there that I don't accept. There is no
> evidence that it is harmful to *anyone*, men or women.

It objectifies women. If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
haven't the stamina to educate you.

-- 
 \           “We spend the first twelve months of our children's lives |
  `\          teaching them to walk and talk and the next twelve years |
_o__)           telling them to sit down and shut up.” —Phyllis Diller |
Ben Finney

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

#18478

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:54:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
[...]
>> You're making an assumption there that I don't accept. There is no
>> evidence that it is harmful to *anyone*, men or women.
> 
> It objectifies women.

So you claim.

> If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
> haven't the stamina to educate you.

Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that this 
sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop claiming that 
it is harmful?

Or do you expect us to just take your word for it and stop questioning 
you?


-- 
Steven

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

#18483

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:54:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > It objectifies women.
>
> So you claim.

I'm sure you have a hundred ready rationalisations for why a joke that
has “girlfriend” as a fungible object, together with “car” and “house”
as things to mechanically import into one's life, is somehow not
objectifying women.

But, while those rationalisations may satisfy you, I'm not interested in
hearing them. If you don't see that the joke objectifies women, that
tells me quite a lot about how blinkered you are to the problem.

For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with such rationalisations,
having employed them many times myself. Fortunately there are women who
will speak up against it and encourage men to do the same 
<URL:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x168.html>.

> Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that
> this sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop
> claiming that it is harmful?

I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.

Women (to return to the people in question), on the other hand, do not
have that luxury. In this community they have no option but to be aware
of the privileges we males have here.

We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
which is perpetuating a hostile environment.

I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
to clean up our house more.

-- 
 \          “A hundred times every day I remind myself that […] I must |
  `\       exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have |
_o__)                received and am still receiving” —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney

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

#18488

Ben Finney wrote:
> I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
> know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
> English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
> luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
> of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.


> We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
> needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
> field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
> easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
> which is perpetuating a hostile environment.


> I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
> retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
> defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
> hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
> to clean up our house more.

+1

~Ethan~

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

#18501

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 02:42, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> I'm sure you have a hundred ready rationalisations for why a joke that
> has “girlfriend” as a fungible object, together with “car” and “house”
> as things to mechanically import into one's life, is somehow not
> objectifying women.
>
> But, while those rationalisations may satisfy you, I'm not interested in
> hearing them. If you don't see that the joke objectifies women, that
> tells me quite a lot about how blinkered you are to the problem.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with such rationalisations,
> having employed them many times myself. Fortunately there are women who
> will speak up against it and encourage men to do the same
> <URL:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x168.html>.
>
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
>> Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that
>> this sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop
>> claiming that it is harmful?
>
> I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
> know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
> English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
> luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
> of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.
>
> Women (to return to the people in question), on the other hand, do not
> have that luxury. In this community they have no option but to be aware
> of the privileges we males have here.
>
> We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
> needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
> field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
> easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
> which is perpetuating a hostile environment.
>
> I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
> retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
> defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
> hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
> to clean up our house more.

A hearty +1 to this!

-- 
Rami Chowdhury
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade - it makes the hand bleed
that uses it." -- Rabindranath Tagore
+44-7581-430-517 / +1-408-597-7068 / +88-0189-245544

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

#18508

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Tony Pelletier <tony.pelletier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, is this list really what this is all about?  I'm bored already...

Sorry, this list does not exist for your personal entertainment.
Maybe you should try YouTube.

And no, it's not really about sexism either, but there is no harm in
the occasional educational rant.  Kudos to Ben for fighting the good
fight!

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

#18509

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tony Pelletier
<tony.pelletier@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a rather ironic comment.  Idiot.

Really?  Which part was ironic?

>> Sorry, this list does not exist for your personal entertainment.

Not this one, that's just a statement of fact.

>> Maybe you should try YouTube.

Kinda.  What I really meant here was "Maybe you should just go away",
but that is not really in opposition with what I actually said, so
it's not technically irony either, just mild understatement.

>> And no, it's not really about sexism either,

Literal statement of fact.

>> but there is no harm in the occasional educational rant.

Literal statement of opinion.

>> Kudos to Ben for fighting the good fight!

And I meant that 100%.  Also not ironic.

...

Oh, wait, I get it now.  Your post was ironically self-referential.  "Clever!"

By the way, take a constructive suggestion and stop top-posting.
Bottom-posting is the commonly preferred style around these parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting

Cheers [irony!],
Ian

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

#18510

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Tony Pelletier
<tony.pelletier@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have zero desire to follow the rules of a Python(here's the ironic part.
> Get it now clever boy?) list when it'd riddled with childish banter that has
> nothing to do with........ wait for it......................... Python?

Fair enough.  If this thread and this exchange were actually
representative of the list, I wouldn't want to waste my time with it
either.

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

#18516

On 4 January 2012 20:08, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Tony Pelletier
> <tony.pelletier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have zero desire to follow the rules of a Python(here's the ironic part.
>> Get it now clever boy?) list when it'd riddled with childish banter that has
>> nothing to do with........ wait for it......................... Python?
>
> Fair enough.  If this thread and this exchange were actually
> representative of the list, I wouldn't want to waste my time with it
> either.

Sadly, my feeling is that the amount of vacuous discussions and
hair-splitting debates is steadily increasing.  Just to see, I had a
look at the archives for July 2001 (because that's around the time I
took up Python) and the list definitely had a more interesting feel to
it.  It also made me realise that many of the best contributors have
gone or only make rare appearances.  Anyway, there was little spam,
but already some trolls, e.g.

    "Is Python Dead?"
    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-July/091178.html

Not everyone was convinced about PEP 238 (new semantics for "/"):

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-July/090659.html

Did you change your mind, Terry?  I too used to be against it :)

I'll stop now.  Cheers,

-- 
Arnaud

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

#18583

On Jan 3, 8:42 pm, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes:
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:54:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > It objectifies women.
>
> > So you claim.
>
> I'm sure you have a hundred ready rationalisations for why a joke that
> has “girlfriend” as a fungible object, together with “car” and “house”
> as things to mechanically import into one's life, is somehow not
> objectifying women.
>
> But, while those rationalisations may satisfy you, I'm not interested in
> hearing them. If you don't see that the joke objectifies women, that
> tells me quite a lot about how blinkered you are to the problem.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm very familiar with such rationalisations,
> having employed them many times myself. Fortunately there are women who
> will speak up against it and encourage men to do the same
> <URL:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x168.html>.
>
> > Since you can't or won't persuade me (and anyone else reading) that
> > this sort of joke is harmful, does that mean that you will stop
> > claiming that it is harmful?
>
> I have no idea what it would take to persuade you in particular. I do
> know that the combined privileges of being white, male, not-poor, and
> English-fluent (and many more privileges, I'm sure) grant both of us the
> luxury of barely even perceiving the harm done by a pervasive atmosphere
> of even low-level prejudice against any given group of people.
>
> Women (to return to the people in question), on the other hand, do not
> have that luxury. In this community they have no option but to be aware
> of the privileges we males have here.
>
> We have very effective cognitive blinders, merely because we have never
> needed to know what it's like being a woman in this prevalently-male
> field. The onus is on us to try hard to see, despite those blinders and
> easy rationalisations, that there is a lot we allow from our fellows
> which is perpetuating a hostile environment.
>
> I'm not making a fuss about one sexist joke, which has already been
> retracted by its author. I'm making a fuss about allowing and, worse,
> defending such jokes as a tacitly-accepted norm of our community. And I
> hope those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as not-sexist will act
> to clean up our house more.

Your points are all valid, except, not valid in this particular
argument. import girlfriend is not sexist, no more than import car is
selfish, and import house is greedy. I think the joke is on the poor
guy who needs this module. He is a poor soul with nothing, who needs
to import everything.

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

#18481

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> It objectifies women. If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
> haven't the stamina to educate you.

And "import pickle" objectifies pickles. It's deplorable how few
gherkins become programmers, and I think it's because of these
immature jokes about pickles that have become entrenched in the Python
community. These folk are on the very point of becoming programmers
when they read an extremely obscure reference in one program's module
collection and, as a result, choose a career elsewhere (in the case of
pickles, there's always a job at McDonalds).

ChrisA

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

#18584

On Jan 3, 8:37 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > It objectifies women. If you can't see how that's harmful to women, I
> > haven't the stamina to educate you.
>
> And "import pickle" objectifies pickles. It's deplorable how few
> gherkins become programmers, and I think it's because of these
> immature jokes about pickles that have become entrenched in the Python
> community.

No, no, "import pickle" is not about objectifying pickles, it's a sub-
conscience Freudian phallic symbol!

import pickle
pickle.LONG4 # Only the blind would miss that one!
pickle.load
pickle.dump
pickle.EMPTY_DICT # Using GvR's pronunciation

But don't worry, *some group* is sure to be offended.

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

#18484

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:37:24 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> And "import pickle" objectifies pickles ...

Not quite:  "import pickle" merely readies the machinery that objectifies 
pickles.  In order to objectify a pickle, you have to call pickle.loads:

>>> import pickle  # get ready to objectify a pickle, but don't do it yet
>>> x = SomeClass(some_value, some_other_value)
>>> s = pickle.dumps(x)  # now s contains a pickle
>>> y = pickle.loads(s)  # this actually objectifies the pickle known as s

Sorry.

Now back to your regularly scheduled holy war.

*sigh*

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web