[Python-ideas] More classical for-loop
steve at pearwood.info
Sun Feb 19 06:29:52 EST 2017
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 03:58:56AM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
> Right after that however, pure physics comes in play.
> So memorizing a visual pattern happens in some minutes
> of active reading, but further reading lasts "till final victory".
You think that learning to read is "pure physics". That's very ignorant
of physiology, neuroscience and pedagogy.
> Nevertherless, the language that uses more
> reading-effective patterns, in physical sense,
> will be superior to the language that uses "meaningful"
> words but which are optically bad,e.g. "all" or "through".
> And with all respect, "in" happens to be one.
You think that "in" is "optically bad" and "over" is "optically good".
Please tell us the optics formula used to determine the optical
"goodness" and "badness" of a word. I want to see this physics formula
that tells us how good or bad a word is "optically", and I want to know
the names of at least a dozen widely available text books that teach
about this theory of the optical goodness and badness of words.
I want to know who discovered this formula, where it has been published
for peer-review by other scientists, and what evidence exists that the
formula is factually correct.
Unless you do all that, don't bother responding. Your personal opinion
about the optical properties of words is not a fact, and we aren't
interested. Go start a blog and write about it there for people who care
about your theories, and stop wasting our time here.
The purpose of this mailing list is to improve the Python language, not
to make it match your pseudo-scientific fantasies. There is absolutely
no chance that the "in" keyword is going to be replaced by "over". Zero.
None. абсолю́тный ноль.
This is the last I have to say about this proposal. Don't bother
responding to argue, I'm not listening, and I doubt anyone else is
either. This proposal is dead in the water, its not going anywhere.
More information about the Python-ideas