On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-5, Mikhail V wrote: > ChrisA wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Mikhail V <mikhailwas at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-07-18, Steve D'Aprano <steve+python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> > > > _Neither system is right or wrong, or better than the > > > > other._ > > > > > > If that is said just "not to hurt anybody" then its ok. > > > Though this statement is pretty absurd, not so many > > > (intelligent) people will buy this out today. > > > > Let me give you one concrete example: [...] > > Ok, in this narrow context I can also agree. But in > slightly wider context that phrase may sound almost like: > "neither geometrical shape is better than the other as a > basis for a wheel. If you have polygonal wheels, they are > still called wheels." All equilateral and equiangular polygons are approximations of the wheel (or the circle, to be more general). Of course, any "polygonal wheel" with a number of sides less than 6 would be very difficult to roll. 5 may be possible (to some degree). However, 4 and 3 would be more useful as snowplows than as "wheels". So the distinction between a wheel that is either an "N-sided polygon" or a "true circle" becomes more a matter of "levels of practicality" (both in usage _and_ manufacturing) than anything else. Of course -- and it goes without saying, but this being python-list i feel compelled to say it *wink* -- the perfect circle is the best wheel. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
