On Jan 21, 10:46 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote: > * Carl Banks: > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2:38 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote: > >> * Carl Banks: > > >>> On Jan 20, 11:43 pm, Martin Drautzburg <martin.drautzb...@web.de> > >> [snip] > > >>>> What I am really looking for is a way > >>>> - to be able to call move(up) > >>>> - having the "up" symbol only in the context of the function call > >>> Short answer is, you can't do it. > >> On the contrary, it's not difficult to do. > > >> I provided an example in my answer to the OP (first reply in the thread). > > > Your example doesn't remotely do what the OP was asking for. In fact > > your example is so preposterous I question your sanity. > > Your first sentence is incorrect, your second sentence is a silly attempt at > getting personal. > > >> However, it's IMHO an abuse of the language, not something that one should > >> do. > > > Usually people abuse the language to achieve something (ostensibly) > > useful. Your example is so useless I don't think I would even call it > > abuse. > > You are correct that it's useless. The OP asked for a construct to do a > useless > thing. The presented construct does exactly what the OP asked for: useless. > > > As best as I can tell, what it is is you attempting to make yourself > > look like some kind of badass by answering some absurdly literal > > interpretation of the OP's question. > > Hm, there are ways to do things, even the ad hominem thing. You just present > yourself as one using strong words when you're proven wrong. Myself I'm not > foreign to strong words :-), but I wouldn't dream of applying them to a > person. > > The above is very, uh, primitive. > > Besides, it's quite silly to get angry when you're proved to be wrong. :-) > > > Except you haven't even done that: > > > class using_directions: > > up = 42 > > move( up ) > > print up # <- clearly not confined to context of function call > > You know, I didn't think of that ingenious thing, that it would be possible to > *modify* the example so that it no longer fit the OP's literal description. > Thx!
I'm not sure if you're trolling, insane, or just stupid; regardless, I'm done with you. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
