On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:12:35AM -0800, Rick Johnson wrote: > I have already backed my argument with multiple code > examples, exhaustive explanations
Which were all false and/or nonsensical. > > if item: > > process(item) > > else: > > do_without_item() > > The above code sample is semantically equivalent to the > following real-life "situational logic": > > [man sits on couch and enjoys sports programming] > > if thirsty: > grab_beer_from_fridge() > else: > stay_on_couch() So what you're ultimately saying is you're making an *assumption* that the English phrase "do without item" MEANS to do nothing, and therefore do_without_item() MUST be defined as pass. However both of those things are FALSE, and once again your entire argument is completely invalid. It's also true that such an assumption is antithetical to the example. So, your assumption is both logically and contextually nonsensical. If you're on a sinking boat, and you could stop the boat from sinking if you had a rubber seal, but you don't have one, you're forced to do_without_item(). Does that mean you're going to sit in the boat and let it sink with you in it? By your arguments, apparently YOU must... But the rest of us would try to fix the leak another way, or failing that, get the hell out of the boat. I like our definition of do_without_item() better. Ned is right, you just need to be ingored. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
