On Jul 30, 8:24 pm, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 30, 8:03 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Russ P. wrote: > > > The reason I wrote that "it would be nice to be able to write" > > > > if x is not empty: > > > > is that it reads naturally. It was not an actual proposal, and the > > > fact that you took it as such was *your* mistake. > > ... > > > Now read carefully: I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT! Let > > > me repeat that for you: I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT! > > > Did you get that, idiot? > > > So people who can read words but not minds are idiots. Go get 'em, tiger! > > I don't know if you can read minds, but you seem to have a lot of > trouble reading words. > > Can you read "it would be nice to be able to write ..."? Can you > understand what it means? Can you understand that it does *not* mean, > "one *should* be able to write ..."? > > The really significant question here is why I waste my valuable time > with pedants like you.
Folks, I'm sorry for being so harsh here. But this guy keeps insisting that I dispayed a "fundamental lack of understanding" of the correct usage of "is" in Python. If that were true, I would have gladly admitted it and dropped the matter. But it is completely false. The simple fact is that I fully understood how "is" works in Python from the first time I read about it -- as I'm sure most others here did too. It just gets my goat that someone would latch onto some whimsical suggestion I wrote to try to prove otherwise. He did not need to play that silly little game, and he could have easily avoided my insults had he not played it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
