Ned Batchelder :
> On 11/8/17 3:05 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> If someone's postings constantly frustrate you, simply place them in
>> your killfile. I've done that to people. People have done that to me.
>
> Tolerating bad behavior and advising people to cope by kill-filing is
> terrible advice.
Ned Batchelder writes:
> On 11/10/17 6:03 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ned Batchelder writes:
> >> Beyond just respect and compassion, this discussion has mentioned
> >> "changing people's minds" a few times. How's that going?
> > Impressively well, in my opinion.
>
> It seems to me that Steve has
On 11/10/17 6:03 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Ned Batchelder writes:
On 11/8/17 10:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
What has been made clear to me is that we have a long way to go in
pursuit of allowing ideas to be held at arm's length, discussed and
criticised, with respect and compassion for one another.
Ned Batchelder writes:
> On 11/8/17 10:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > What has been made clear to me is that we have a long way to go in
> > pursuit of allowing ideas to be held at arm's length, discussed and
> > criticised, with respect and compassion for one another.
>
> Indeed. Beyond just resp
On 11/8/17 10:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
How many paragraphs of close parsing are we going to twist ourselves
through, just to avoid saying, "Yeah, sorry, that went a bit far. I
didn't want to alienate you in the pursuit of a demonstration of my
own correctness."
I don't have any aim of avoiding
On 11/8/17 3:05 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Jon Ribbens :
It is my experience of this group/list that if one disagrees with any
of you, Steve and Chris, you all rally round and gang up on that
person to insult and belittle them. This makes the atmosphere quite
hostile, and it would be quite remark
Paul Moore writes:
> And on that note, shouldn't participants on this list follow the
> Python code of conduct[1]? Specifically, I don't see a lot of
> adherence to the mandate to be "tactful when approaching differing
> views" in this debate :-(
Yes, we should all adhere to the forum's Code of
On 11/09/2017 10:51 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 09/11/17 17:41, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
>>> wrote:
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...] Please, Jon, accept that we
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017, Gregory Ewing wrote:>
But ideas are not software -- they don't actively
>*do* anything, so trying to anthropomorphise them
>doesn't really work.
Generally true. I just remember the notable exception:
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
That case of anthropomorphism w
On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
> wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your positio
On 09/11/17 17:41, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
wrote:
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can
On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
> wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position
On 09/11/2017 17:04, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:00 AM, bartc wrote:
On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
wrote:
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not delib
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:00 AM, bartc wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>>>
On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
wrote:
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
(possibly
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
>> (possibly worded in the form of an apology
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...]
> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
> (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
> to clearing this up.
> ChrisA
Are you t
On 11/08/2017 08:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ned Batchelder writes:
> [...]
>> Second, now you want us to agree that calling someone arrogant isn't
>> an attack?
>
> It's one thing to say “this idea is arrogant”, which is what Steve did.
> That's not in any way personal, nor an attack on a person.
Gregory Ewing :
> There are plenty of good ways of criticising an idea that are clearly
> about the idea itself, so there is no need to resort to adjectives
> that could be misunderstood as veiled ad-hominem attacks.
I disagree. Ad hominems are needed when you run out of reasoned
arguments but fee
On 9 November 2017 at 05:08, Ben Finney wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>
>> Jon Ribbens :
>> > It is my experience of this group/list that if one disagrees with any
>> > of you, Steve and Chris, you all rally round and gang up on that
>> > person to insult and belittle them. This makes the atmos
Chris Angelico wrote:
And it's illogical to say "Windows is feeling cranky today" when
something inexplicably fails.
Everyone understands that to be a tongue-in-cheek
metaphor for "Windows is misbehaving in unfathomable
ways", and not "the people who wrote Windows were
feeling cranky when they
Chris Angelico wrote:
I don't understand why you would use "yield from" as a synonym for
"await". They are not equivalent. Why would you use one in place of
the other?
As far as I understand, currently the implementations of "yield from"
and "await" are sufficiently similar that they *would* be
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Jon Ribbens :
> > It is my experience of this group/list that if one disagrees with any
> > of you, Steve and Chris, you all rally round and gang up on that
> > person to insult and belittle them. This makes the atmosphere quite
> > hostile, and it would be quite remarkab
Ned Batchelder writes:
> On 11/8/17 5:22 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > To say that someone is being arrogant simply is not an attack, and I
> > really want you to see that.
> Ben, this idea is really stupid!
>
> Be honest: when you read what I just wrote, did you feel a
> dispassionate discussion sta
Jon Ribbens :
> It is my experience of this group/list that if one disagrees with any
> of you, Steve and Chris, you all rally round and gang up on that
> person to insult and belittle them. This makes the atmosphere quite
> hostile, and it would be quite remarkable if it isn't hurting the
> commun
On 09Nov2017 05:29, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney wrote:
I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
with the instinct to fee
On 11/8/17 5:22 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Jon Ribbens writes:
On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney wrote:
I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
Steve
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> If you call an idea arrogant you are necessarily stating that the
>> person espousing the idea is guilty of arrogance - that's what the
>> word means.
>
> Yes: it describes the behaviour. It does not imply characterisation of
> the person.
>
> T
Jon Ribbens writes:
> On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
> > I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
> > with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
>
> Steve called me arrogant, that'
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Except that "yield from" is used by generators to delegate to other
>>> generators, and "await" is used by coroutines to delegat
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> This reminds me of a classic video clip from a few years ago. The new
> Microsoft "We Share Your Pain" program.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D28FkfJiauk
I've never actually seen this before. That's awesome! Thanks for sharing :)
Chr
On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> If that's true, then it's not possible for software to be
> "opinionated" either, because that definitely implies something human.
> And it's illogical to say "Windows is feeling cranky today" when
> something inexplicably fails. Nor should you talk a
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Except that "yield from" is used by generators to delegate to other
>> generators, and "await" is used by coroutines to delegate to other
>> coroutines. In an asynchronous generator, "yiel
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney wrote:
>> I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
>> I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
>> with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
>
> Stev
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I was not referring to the possible future use of yield from for async
>>>
On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney wrote:
> I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
> I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
> with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
Steve called me arrogant, that's an attack - never mind that he
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> I was not referring to the possible future use of yield from for async
>>> generators; I was referring to the possibility *today* of us
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I was not referring to the possible future use of yield from for async
>> generators; I was referring to the possibility *today* of using "yield
>> from" as a synonym for *await*. As far as
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I was not referring to the possible future use of yield from for async
> generators; I was referring to the possibility *today* of using "yield
> from" as a synonym for *await*. As far as I know the only major
> obstacle to that is that the author
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Not one of these is syntactically invalid. Why should "else without
>>> break" be trapped by the parser? Your other examples mostly have good
>>> parser-level reasons for being errors
>>
>
Ned Batchelder writes:
> All of this could have been avoided. Steve called an idea arrogant.
> Jon felt that Steve was calling him arrogant. If Steve had simply
> said, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean that to apply to you," we wouldn't be
> here now. Why is it so hard to treat people as if they matter
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:28 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> Steve's manufactured interactive example ("manufactured" because
>> who really uses for-else interactively? If I really care that much
>> about output formatting I'm going to put it in a scr
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 04:28 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Steve's manufactured interactive example ("manufactured" because
> who really uses for-else interactively? If I really care that much
> about output formatting I'm going to put it in a script).
Me. As I have said.
I really don't appreciate you imp
On 11/7/17 5:48 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Ian Kelly writes:
Nowadays I realize and accept that this is preposterous. You cannot
criticize an idea without also criticizing the people who are attached
to that idea.
Maybe so. Does that mean we must not criticise ideas? Later in your
message you say
Ian Kelly writes:
> Nowadays I realize and accept that this is preposterous. You cannot
> criticize an idea without also criticizing the people who are attached
> to that idea.
Maybe so. Does that mean we must not criticise ideas? Later in your
message you say no, but everything leading up to it
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> All of these are things that a linter should probably catch and warn
> about. If you had said that the break syntax suggestion was a good
> idea but probably better suited as a linter warning than as a
> SyntaxError integrated into the parser, the
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Maybe we're not defending the abuse of other contributors. Maybe we're
>>> defending a legitimate, if somewhat caustic, response
On 2017-11-07, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Chris Angelico writes:
>>>sure what your point is. None, False, and True are all keywords, not
>>>built-ins, so you can't assign to them (any more than you could assign
>>>to a literal integer).
>>
>> |Py
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>>sure what your point is. None, False, and True are all keywords, not
>>built-ins, so you can't assign to them (any more than you could assign
>>to a literal integer).
>
> |Python 2.6.6 (r266:84297, Aug 24 2010, 18:13:38)
On 2017-11-07, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>>sure what your point is. None, False, and True are all keywords, not
>>built-ins, so you can't assign to them (any more than you could assign
>>to a literal integer).
>
>|Python 2.6.6 (r266:84297, Aug 24 2010, 18:13:38) [MSC v.1500 64 bi
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Jon Ribbens
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-04, Ben Finney wrote:
To respond to the criticism of an idea – criticism containing no mention
of the pers
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Jon Ribbens
> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-04, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> To respond to the criticism of an idea – criticism containing no mention
>>> of the person – as though it “clearly refers to the [person]”, is of
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Kelly writes:
>
>> Please stop defending the use of incivility on this list.
>
> Please stop conflating people, who deserve civility, with ideas. We must
> not allow the civility deserved by people, to prevent us from
> criticising any idea
Jon Ribbens writes:
> On 2017-11-04, Ben Finney wrote:
> > To respond to the criticism of an idea – criticism containing no
> > mention of the person – as though it “clearly refers to the
> > [person]”, is of significant concern on a software dicussion forum
> > such as this.
>
> No, the thing t
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2017-11-04, Ben Finney wrote:
>> To respond to the criticism of an idea – criticism containing no mention
>> of the person – as though it “clearly refers to the [person]”, is of
>> significant concern on a software dicussion forum such as t
On 2017-11-04, Ben Finney wrote:
> To respond to the criticism of an idea – criticism containing no mention
> of the person – as though it “clearly refers to the [person]”, is of
> significant concern on a software dicussion forum such as this.
No, the thing that is "of significant conern on a so
56 matches
Mail list logo
