Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it's EXACTLY the > > concatenation of three copies of that string -- no more, no less. > > Depends what one means by 'copy'. See below for your alternate wording.
Please give me a reasonable definition of the unadorned word "copy" which would make this statement false. (And, just to forestall one possible attempt: no, I cannot agree that a ``deepcopy'' is a reasonable definition of the _unadorned_ word "copy"). > >> Or one could say that the result *is the same as* (not *is*) the > > > > I find this distinction, in this context, to be empty padding, with zero > > added value on ANY plane -- including the plane of "pedantry";-). > > Perhaps you should tone down the overwrought emotionalism and take a look > in a mirror. In *your* response to Michael you made the *same* > distinction: I did not *DRAW* any distinction (as you did with your parenthetical note "(not *is*)", emphasis and all) -- rather, I used one of many reasonably interchangeable ways to word a concept. ((In the Nutshell, I always deliberately try to pick the shortest and most concise way; in my more spontaneous writing, I strongly tend to wilder exhuberance). So, having deeply delved into the mirror, I still fail to find any validity in your criticism: the phrases "S*n is the same as the concatenation of" and "S*n the concatenation of", taken as definitions of what S*n means, are such that your emphatic distinction has no added value whatsoever -- I stand by this assertion and fail to see in it any emotionalism, overwrought or otherwise. Care to _defend_ your criticism, with some _objective_ explanation of why that parenthetical was warranted (particularly the emphasis within it)? Or would you rather continue the personal attacks against me and the unproven accusations of "overwrought emotionalism" in particular? Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
