[Python-ideas] [Spam] Re: Anonymous blocks (again):

[Haoyi Li]

No offense taken =)


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>  > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 05:24:47PM -0400, Terry Jan Reedy wrote:
>
>  > > As for your soapbox issue:
>
> Which is, strictly speaking, off-topic, since he disclaims the intent
> to advocate a change to Python, let alone propose a concrete change.
>
> His post on method chaining was thoughtful, but really, it's hardly
> fair to criticize anyone for confusing a-Pythonicity of method
> chaining with some inherent flaw in that style.  This list is for
> advocating changes to Python, and I don't see how my post could be
> construed in that context as claiming the method-chaining style is
> inherently flawed, vs. inappropriate for further support in Python.
>
>  > > People sometimes misuse Tim Peter's Zen of Python points. He
>  > > wrote them to stimulate thought, not serve as a substitute for
>  > > thought, and certainly not be a pile of mudballs to be used to
>  > > chase people away.
>  >
>  > +1000
>
> As the person who cited "Pythonicity" and several points of the Zen in
> this thread, I would appreciate instruction as to how I "misused" the
> terms or "substituted mudballs for thought", rather than simply being
> bashed for criticizing someone else's (admittedly thoughtful) post.
> And especially not being bashed at a multiplication factor of 1000.
>
> @Haoyi:  I'm sorry.  I do apologize for the implication that anybody
> should "go away".  I should have been more careful with pronouns.  The
> "you" who likes method chaining was intended to be different from the
> "you" who "*do* have the choice of languages".  But I could have, and
> should have, avoided writing "you" in the second case.  You are
> clearly making useful contributions in code as well as in discussion,
> and I'd appreciate you staying around for a while.  A long while.
>
> The intended point, restated, was "If method chaining were not well-
> supported in other languages, it would be arguable that this might be
> a good innovation for Python even though it's not positively Pythonic.
> But it is well-supported elsewhere, so there is no *need* for it in
> Python."  I can see how one might disagree with that, but I hope noone
> finds it offensive.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20130515/71b21ebb/attachment.html>