Alex Martelli wrote: > Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Alex Martelli wrote: >> >> > So, *WHAT ON EARTH* could possibly >> > make this weird 'x[:]' form preferable to 'x*1'?! It's MUCH more >> > obvious that the second one returns an independent, separate object >> > initially equal to x >> >> .>> x = 2 >> .>> y = x*1 >> .>> x is y >> True >> .>> >> >> just-kidding-ly yours, > > You're just snipping a crucial side-observation which I had put in > exactly to avert such irrelevant diversions: > >> whenever it >> matters -- i.e., whenever x is mutable. > > Immutable types are allowed to collapse any two equal but "distinct" > objects into one identity -- that's always the case, I acknowledged that > in my sentence which I just quoted and which you had failed to quote > again, and I don't see what's funny in this procedure and the time it's > wasting, for me and for every reader of this group, now and in the > future from archives.
Well, I overread your side-observation (can happen if you don't have too much time and are not accustomed to flying over English text) and, though I sensed that it was bad, posted my little joke. > I'm sure that by selectively quoting just some of your words and > artfully omitting others I could ``make" you say, not just slightly > imprecise things, but utter and total idiocies. So? What's the point > of this "kidding"? Next time, why don't you just omit, for example, a > "not", when you quote me, so as to make it appear that I was saying > exactly the reverse of what I was obviously saying? Well, snipping single paragraphs is different from snipping words out of them. Sorry. Didn't mean to drive you insane -- your posts are of use, so clpy (include me) need you in the future. > I guess it must be time for me to go away from this group again, if my > time on it is to me spent repeating over and over all sorts of asides > which people "just kidding" carefully avoid quoting from my posts, > apparently in order to make believe they caught me in anything less than > perfect accuracy. Cheez -- I HAVE been guilty of less than perfect > accuracy in the past (even of outright errors), but not THIS time (if > one has the common decency to look at ALL the words I posted, rather > than a careful selection thereof), so I completely fail to see how you > thought this "kidding" could be fun. This is the hot Italian temper, I suppose ;) Of course you were right, and I'm glad to see your posts of today. > OK, I'm off. Have a nice life. Thanks, I'll do. Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
