Observations on the List - "Be More Kind"
I will declare at the outset, I am a lurker. I don't know enough about Python to give advice that I could 100% guarantee would be helpful. There have been two recent threads that summarise for me where the Python Mailing List has lost its way (and this started before Trump arrived as a new role model for how to treat your fellow man): "Re: This thread is closed [an actual new thread]" "Re: So apparently I've been banned from this list" The level of vitriol and personal attacks on the moderators was profoundly disappointing, but not totally out of character for those who made the attacks. There is no doubt that these people know software and Python and this certainly earns my respect, but perhaps they need to retain a sense of perspective. There are 7 billion people in the world. There are plenty more people at least as good as you and many better, but they don't have the compelling urge to demonstrate their genius. They get on with their work in a quiet professional manner. Some humility in acknowledging that you stand on the shoulders of giants would not go amiss. It might also reflect that you understand the good fortune that dealt you such a good hand in life. You aren't always right, and you don't always have to insist on being right. I found Steve D'Aprano always had to have the last word and had to prove he was right. I found some of his posts to be intemperate in tone. Why is there a need to score points with caustic remarks or throwaway comments? Perhaps the person who posed his question should have read the documents, perhaps he should have searched the archives. Tell them so politely and firmly. If you cannot manage that then why say anything? Not everyone who posts a poorly prepared question is idle and deserves a response that is less than polite. Prepare a boilerplate standard reply that is polite for those questions that are easily resolved by the poster. Perhaps the person who posts something you regard as nonsense is ignorant and lacks the knowledge they think they possess. Instead of wasting your time with scholastic debate, put the time to good use improving your education in subjects you don't excel at. I can guarantee the depth of your ignorance will be profound - there will be much for you to learn. The effort some of you put in to the endless debates suggests that you have plenty of time on your hands - don't waste it. It will be gone soon enough. Don't waste time on the trolls, some of whom undoubtedly enjoy the ability to provoke a response. Develop a greater sense of self awareness to enable you to recognise that you are being played. The intemperate tone of some of the exchanges damages the reputation of the List. Life is hard enough without us adding to it. Try silence as a response. Listen to Frank Turner's latest album: "Be More Kind". That is not a plug to buy the album, but the title seems apposite - and the music is good. Regards Bruce Coram -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: c[:]()
I am a relative newbie to Python and certainly to this mailing list. I have watched this thread with interest. After the first few exchanges I thought it would prove interesting and it has. Warren Stringer is one of two things: A joker having some fun at your expense. An intellectually pretentious person who is so self absorbed that he is mentally incapable of seeing the hollowness of his ideas. Either way it's probably not worth spending any more time on him. All that needs to be said has been. This thread is bare. Exit Bruce Coram > 2007/6/1, Warren Stringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> I am not insisting on anything. I use ``c[:]()`` as shorthand way of saying >> "c() for c in d where d is a container" >> >> Having c() support containers seems obvious to me. It jibes with duck >> typing. Perhaps the title of this thread should have been: "Why don't >> containers quack?" >> >> A change is surprising only if it breaks something. I still haven't seen any >> code that breaks by making such a change. Seeing such code would teach a >> great deal. >> > > I think it very much bites duck typing. Currently, if I try to execute > a string or a list or whatever, I get: > > TypeError: 'str' object is not callable > > But under your proposed semantics, suppose a is a list with some > executable and some non-executable elements. What should > > a() > > now give? It cannot be a TypeError, because a list (in your semantics) > is callable. Whatever error it gives, and whether or not the preceding > executables are executed first, it will not be an existing error > acting the way it normally does - there is no Python error for "you > cannot do this with this object, but you can do it with other objects > of the same type". And that does not seem to be a case of "We have > never needed it yet" - the join method seems to have been specifically > tailored so that no such error is needed. > > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Aahz wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think what Boris was being exceedingly unhelpful in saying was "why >> should it work when you're calling methods that do not exist" >> > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge themselves at the expense of others. While it is undoubtedly true that there are people who post who should spend more time reading and researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that are rude, hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance. Eric Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or both. If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or enjoys being rude. The best response to those who can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply or a simple "You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question." We do not need to make life any more difficult than it already is. Civility costs nothing. Eric Raymond's article, which offer's good advice, is rather misguided in not only providing an excuse for poor behaviour but almost actively encouraging it. This is a pity since the essence of the document is very good advice. Bruce Coram -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Steven Regrettably I have to reply to your post because it misses the point of my initial post completely. I suggested that Eric Raymond's advice provided cover for people who were rude, hostile or arrogant. There are two obvious responses: his advice does not provide such cover or it does but it does not matter. It make no assertions about any particular person or group of persons. It merely suggests that people who were disposed to rudeness could point to his article as supporting their approach. It was a plea that we conduct ourselves in a civil manner and treat other people with respect. I might be justified in assuming that you have spent some time working with politicians because you impute arguments to me that I do not make. At no point do I suggest that pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is rude, hostile or arrogant, and your interpretation of my words to arrive at this is perverse. It may be that English is not your first language in which case such a slip could be excused. If not, it is evidence either of slipshod thinking or wilfull manipulation and obfuscation. If it is the latter then the post does not sit well in a forum that strives for accuracy. Had I written: The best response to those who *we assume* can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply or a simple "You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question." you would be justified in claiming that my advice was not to give any advice. I did not include the words 'we assume' and therefore my advice either to stop replying or to give a polite sign off was based on there being evidence that a person seeking advice could not be bothered i.e. there had been sufficient contact to allow that conclusion to be drawn in a reasonable manner. English is a language that permits great precision in conveying meaning. However, it is necessary on occasions to do some work and thinking in order to extract the writer's idea. You also seem to have overlooked that I state twice that Eric Raymond's advice is good or very good. I have no desire to to indulge in online verbal brawling but please take more care in drafting a reply, particularly in a situation where your interpretation of my post might lead others who post to believe that I thought them rude, hostile or arrogant. Bruce Coram Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:14:44 +, Bruce Coram wrote: > > >>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>> >>> >> Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem >> to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge >> themselves at the expense of others. While it is undoubtedly true that >> there are people who post who should spend more time reading and >> researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that are rude, >> hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance. >> > > Pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is neither rude, hostile or > arrogant. It may be brusque. It may fail to sugar-coat the message > sufficiently, and hurt some recipient's feelings, but that's their > problem, not that of the sender. > > > >> Eric >> Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid >> providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or >> both. >> > > Why don't you do so yourself? He solicits suggestions and revisions. > > Or ask for permission to fork the document and come up with your own. > (You have to ask first, because as far as I can see the document is not > released with an open licence.) > > > >> If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an >> intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or >> enjoys being rude. >> > > Dare I suggest that perhaps YOU should read smart-questions? In > particular, the bits where Raymond writes about RTFM: > > "You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent > is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You > should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness." > > Pointing somebody at smart-questions is a rather more polite form of RTFM. > > > >> The best response to those who can not be bothered >> to do the necessary work is either no reply >> > > Ignoring people's request for help to punish them for poor behaviour is > not only rude but it is counter-productive. Not only do you not solve > their immediate problem, but you keep them in a state of ignorance as to > why they are being shunned
Unexpected Behaviour using unittest
The code fragment below shows what appears to be inconsistent
behaviour. The code is testing that messages are created correctly and
that an instances of a class is created correctly. It checks that all
of the expected addresses are used (contained in addresslist) and that
all of the messages are used (contained in msglist). If the data in
msglist that appears in the list in the dictionary whose first key is
'Sonar Main' is a simple list of two items the test behaves as expected
and passes. However, if the data is enclosed within a tuple such that
the list only contains the tuple, which contains the two values, the
test fails. The first of these two values is a class object and the
code tests whether the instance of this class is created correctly
locally and that test is passed in both cases. The test fails because
the msglist item for 'Sonar Main' is not deleted. I have included an
example of the 'Sonar Main' data and also the test output. I can not
explain this behaviour and while it is not a showstopper I need to
understand why. The same behaviour is shown elsewhere if a list of four
items is grouped into two tuples each of two items. Grateful for any
comments/explanations.
CODE FRAGMENT:
msglist = [{'Helm': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20)}},
{'UAW Director': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20),
'sonar_a': ['std'], 'sub_attack': ['std']}},
{'Gun Director': {'guns_s': ['std'], 'init': (80, 80, 0, 12,
140, 20), 'guns_mr': ['std'], 'guns_aa': ['std']}},
{'Sonar Main': {'sonar_s': [DummySonar, 0]}}, {'Surface Radar
Operator': {'radar_s': ['std']}}]
addresslist = ['127.10.2.2', '127.10.2.1', '127.10.2.5',
'127.10.2.4', '127.10.2.3']
for entry in msgs:
if entry[1] in addresslist:
addresslist.remove(entry[1])
if entry[0]['set role'] in msglist:
if entry[0]['set role'].keys() == ['Sonar Main']:
print 'keys = ', entry[0]['set role'].keys()
if not
isinstance(self.newprocessor.vessel.uwsearch.sonar_search,
shipserverclasses.DummySonar):
Pass = False
print '1',
type(self.newprocessor.vessel.uwsearch.sonar_search)
print 'removing msg ', entry[0]['set role']
msglist.remove(entry[0]['set role'])
else:
print 'removing msg ', entry[0]['set role']
msglist.remove(entry[0]['set role'])
if addresslist != []:
Pass = False
print '2', addresslist
if msglist != []:
Pass = False
print '3', msglist
self.failUnless(Pass == True)
Data fragment - passed:
{'Sonar Main': {'sonar_s': [DummySonar, 0]}}
Test Output:
testAllConnectedUWsearchChange2
(__main__.TestMsgProcessesShipServerSetType) ...
removing msg {'Helm': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20)}}
removing msg {'UAW Director': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20),
'sonar_a': ['s
td'], 'sub_attack': ['std']}}
keys = ['Sonar Main']
removing msg {'Sonar Main': {'sonar_s': [
, 0]}}
removing msg {'Gun Director': {'guns_s': ['std'], 'init': (80, 80, 0,
12, 140,
20), 'guns_mr': ['std'], 'guns_aa': ['std']}}
removing msg {'Surface Radar Operator': {'radar_s': ['std']}}
ok
--
Data fragment - failed:
{'Sonar Main': {'sonar_s': [(DummySonar, 0)]}}
Test Output:
testAllConnectedUWsearchChange2
(__main__.TestMsgProcessesShipServerSetType) ...
removing msg {'Helm': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20)}}
removing msg {'UAW Director': {'init': (80, 80, 0, 12, 140, 20),
'sonar_a': ['s
td'], 'sub_attack': ['std']}}
removing msg {'Gun Director': {'guns_s': ['std'], 'init': (80, 80, 0,
12, 140,
20), 'guns_mr': ['std'], 'guns_aa': ['std']}}
removing msg {'Surface Radar Operator': {'radar_s': ['std']}}
3 [{'Sonar Main': {'sonar_s': [(,
0)]}}]
FAIL
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
