On Jun 17, 7:09 am, Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:33:03AM -0300, Gabriel Genellina wrote: > > > Basically 'a is b' and 'not(a is b)' is similar to 'id(a) == id(b)' > > > and 'not(id(a) == id(b))' > > > No. > <snip> > > Saying a flat "no" alone, without qualifying your statement is > generally interpreted as rude in English... It's kind of like how you > talk to children when they're too young to understand the explanation. > Yucky. > Geez, man, this is Usenet. If you want rude or condescending, the answer would have been "No, you flatulent moron." Or maybe the alarmist, "No! No! No!"
I see the unqualified "No." often on this list, as a short cut for "Your technical explanation is flawed or has overlooked a critical point or corner case," and is usually followed by more details further down in the post to explain what the misconception or oversight was. Back in my college days, I would not be surprised for a professor to respond "No." (or worse) if I offered an erroneous explanation to another student. The unqualified "No." may be curt, and on a more sensitive day, one might write "No. (see below)", but as one of the most informed and careful posters on this list, I'm inclined to give Gabriel a little slack. -- Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
