On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 08:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Bart didn't say anyone had defended it. He made an observation: > > "that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to 'x'" > > which is factually correct. And this does refer to the "ducks limp" > thread.
Except it doesn't. Because no-one on that thread made the claim that it is. There's absolutely nothing in the thread (except maybe earlier instances of him and you misrepresenting others' claims) about 'y' being a name reference to 'x', so there's nothing in that thread for it to reasonably refer to. > Nothing he said was wrong or objectionable, and he didn't imply that > anyone was taking the opposite position. Nonsense. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
