Ben Finney wrote: > In fairness, the “No” was in response, not to an explicit question, but > to an assertion. > > Every assertion expressed, though, implies the question “is this > assertion true?”. It was that question that was answered “No” (followed > by an explanation of why the assertion was not true). >
That's a fair point I had never really considered. I'd wouldn't have been nearly as upset if you'd started your sentence with AssertionError :) > People sometimes get upset — on an immediate, irrational level — when > their assertions are challenged. There's no denying that emotions > entangle our discourse, and our interpretation of the discourse of > others. That's truer than most people appreciate, to the extent that it's a good idea to tread very lightly when correcting strangers if you want rational discourse to continue. Even small amounts of negativity commonly provoke large threat responses in people which in turn inhibit rational thinking... Have a watch of this Google Tech Talk if you have time, it's really quite enlightening... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M > > That's not something I'd ever want to eradicate. I ask only that, rather > than decrying that assertions be challenged per se, the challenge be > assessed to see whether it's valid. > Well I think sometimes, for the sake of expediency and overall pleasantness, it's better to let the smaller things go: and if you just can't let them go then at least try and issue corrections in a friendly manner rather than a cold or pious one. As this thread is demonstrating endless checking of every detail of every assertion leads to very long execution times and on balance I'm not sure we benefit from these extra digits of precision. Roger. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
