[Python-ideas] Reminder about intent of messages (Was: Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions)

Ryan Gonzalez rymg19 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 01:12:50 EDT 2018


Now that the discussion has officially devolved into something that has
absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, I'd like to point out
something: (Note that I have no affiliation with the managers of this
mailing list at all and am just posting this as an outsider.)

In Steven D'Aprano's original message, I didn't see anything there as being
a personal attack or as having an angry tone, at least based on his normal
posting style. Maybe a bit critical and stern, but not really personal. You
may have interpreted it as that, but I seriously doubt it was the
intention.

I'd like to propose an alternative to Hanlon's razor, the Internet razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by lack of
context in online conversations.

Online, there is no tone of voice, facial expressions, or extra context to
really help distinguish intent. Misinterpreting has been a classic issue
that's been around for ages and has only gotten worse. When writing a
message, we're responsible for ensuring that the intent is clearly
portrayed. When reading a message, we're responsible for correctly
interpreting such intent, and everyone is usually better off if, when in
doubt, the interpretation leans towards ambiguity over malice.

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018, 11:57 PM Abe Dillon <abedillon at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Alex Walters]
>
>> He is questioning the concept that the lambda keyword has caused any
>> harm.  You assert that it caused minor harm.  Minor harm can still be real,
>> significant, and non-trivial.
>
> What, exactly, is the difference between "minor" and "non-trivial" and
> when did I say the harm was "significant and non-trivial"?
>
> [Alex Walters]
>
>> You will find no evidence to support your argument.
>>
> You could read what I wrote to Neil Girdhar who was able to engage with me
> without implying that I've lost my mind.
>
> [Chris Angelico]
>
>> If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you.
>
> Is this a hypothetical now? I said "*I think* they would (or do in the
> case of 'lambda') harm Python." I wasn't aware the word "harm" was
> something only deranged maniacs use.
>
> [Chris Angelico]
>
>> Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word
>> "lambda".
>
>
> I HAVE.
>
> [Chris Angelico]
>
>> Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context
>
> Who decided this? It's been decided by some committee? When you write a
> key function, you don't know how many arguments are going to be passed?
>
> [Chris Angelico]
>
>> nor is it insignificant.
>
>
> I never said it was. I just said that the logic is more important from the
> standpoint of the reader.
>
> [Chris Angelico]
>
>> Putting it first gives context to the body of the
>> function. Python made the correct choice here.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> This forum is looking more and more toxic. I've explained myself over and
> over again. I just wanted to +1 Steven's original comment. This is
> ridiculous. I guess I've pissed of the good-old-boys by calling out
> Steven's unnecessary condescension. Great. It looks like Python is in
> fantastic hands.
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Abe Dillon <abedillon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > [Steven D'Aprano]
>> >>
>> >> Just because I challenge your statements doesn't mean I'm attacking
>> you.
>> >
>> >
>> > No. Telling me I'm having an extreme overreaction means you're
>> attacking me.
>>
>> If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you.
>>
>> > [Steven D'Aprano]
>> >>
>> >> You've said that the choice of keyword, "lambda", has caused harm.
>> Given
>> >> the chance to clarify what you meant, you stood by your comment that
>> the
>> >> choice of keyword "lambda" has done real, significant, non-trivial harm
>> >> to Python (the language, or the community).
>> >
>> >
>> > What are you talking about? I explained exactly what I meant:
>> >
>> >> I think there are better ways that anonymous functions could have been
>> >> implemented.  I've already said in past discussions, I think the
>> expression
>> >> should come before the signature because the signature is often
>> obvious from
>> >> context so placing it before the logic is kinda noisy. I don't know
>> what the
>> >> best syntax would have been, but I refuse to believe that an esoteric
>> word
>> >> from an esoteric branch of calculus with an arbitrary etymology was the
>> >> absolute best choice available. I think the harm that choice caused is
>> >> relatively minor, but I don't think it was a great choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Notice: I never said "real, significant, non-trivial harm" anywhere in
>> this
>> > entire discussion. I never said anything close to that. Stop jamming
>> > bullshit in my mouth to suit your narrative that I'm "extremely
>> > overreacting". It's not cute.
>>
>> Explain, please, what the HARM is that comes from the use of the word
>> "lambda". In contrast, using the word "function" does definitely have
>> harm, because you can no longer use the name "function" as a variable
>> or parameter.
>>
>> Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context, nor is
>> it insignificant. Putting it first gives context to the body of the
>> function. Python made the correct choice here.
>>
>> > [Steven D'Aprano]
>> >>
>> >> But we ought to "check our privilege", as they say. I think that if we
>> >> as a community automatically reject any word because it isn't "plain
>> >> English", that would be a sign of unexamined privilege and quite rude
>> to
>> >> boot.
>> >
>> >
>> > Rude? Who would it be rude to if we had chosen "anonfunc" instead of
>> > "lambda"?
>>
>> No, but it's no less jargonny.
>>
>> > Very few of us are computer scientists by profession. That's not even
>> where
>> > 'lambda' comes from. In computer science, it's called an "anonymous
>> > function". "lambda" comes from lambda calculus.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_function
>>
>> "In computer programming, an anonymous function (function literal,
>> lambda abstraction, or lambda expression) is a function definition
>> that is not bound to an identifier."
>>
>> So... I would say "lambda" is very firmly connected with anonymous
>> functions.
>>
>> ChrisA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-ideas mailing list
>> Python-ideas at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-- 

Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
https://refi64.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180813/429606a8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list