No Do while/repeat until looping construct in python?

sismex01 at hebmex.com sismex01 at hebmex.com
Fri Mar 14 19:09:39 EST 2003


> > "Questionable design".  That's a pretty subjective qualification,
> > because it's "questionable" from your point of view, using 
> > your scale of what's important and what's not.
> >
> EVERY design decision in the world is subject to question, therefore
> questionable.  That is an OBJECTIVE fact.
> 
> > There is no absolutely perfect language, because absolute perfection
> > does not exist.  Python is "perfect" in it's own niche, 
> > which means it's "relatively perfect".  You might disagree, certainly
> > you're entitled to it; but don't go spouting off pseudo-data and pseudo-
> > knowledge, implying that we *have* to agree with you.
> > 
> First two sentences of paragraph - I agree.
> 
> Third sentence - YOU are the one throwing flames here, not me.
> 

Calling you a "troll" is flaming you?
Damn you have thin skin.

>
> I have backed up EVERYTHING I have said with facts.
> 

No sir, you have not.

You have backed up everything with allegations.

You have an opinion of what is correct and what isn't. Your
own objective fact that nothing is subjective corroborates
exactly that: there is not absolute "correct" in language
design.

There is a "good enough for <purpose>".

> What "pseudo-data" and "pseudo-knowledge", are you referring 
> to, anyway?
> As for the "implication" that I care whether you or anyone else agrees
> with me, you haven't backed that up either.

I don't need to, you're backing it up for me.  The way you keep
this thread alive means that you care about it.  I do not need
to speak for you about this.

If you truly didn't care, you'd let it die.  In fact, taking into
account what you researched (the rules, previous discussions about
it, opinions of Python's designers, etc), you wouldn't have even
started it.

>
> What does "exactly the same thing" mean, then?  You can score 
> some of your own "bonus points" if you can explain that one.
> 

"exactly the same" in effect.

You can code a preconditioned loop, a postconditioned loop,
a midconditioned loop, any kind of loop, using Python's syntax.
You're twisting my words to prove your own point.

> > Exactly, no where.  If you wish to code a "zero or more" 
> > construct in
> > Python, you do it.  If you wish for a "one or more" 
> > construct, you can
> > also do it.

Which is explained here in this paragraph.

>
> When did I ask for "approval by the masses" or "Approved by 
> Guido"?  More false claims.
> 

Why did you start this thread then?

Clearly, you know that Python isn't gonna grow a repeat...until,
nor a do...while, nor any other loop construct it doesn't already
have.  The language's designers and implementers have stated it
repeatedly.

Why are you yelling into the wind then?

> Do you really consider false claims to be a valid argument in 
> favor of the design decisions that I was attempting to discuss
> with you?

>
> When you state it clearly like that, of course there is none.
> 
> Instance variables are in the namespace of the local variable 
> "self", but they are never local despite the fact that they occur
> in an instance method of the same instance of the same class.
> 
> I find it very confusing, and while I can parrot the rules, I 
> don't think I'll EVER understand the rationale (unless someone
> can explain it).
>

Java has this, C++ has this, any other record or structure supporting
language has this (structure members or attributes, and local variables).

The difference is that all "implicit-self" type languages mix up
the instance's namespace and the local namespace implicitly,
creating local _ALIASES_ for structure members (or object attributes).
Thus, there is no explicit way to differentiate local variables from
instance or structure attributes.

How about now?  Clearer?
 
>
> The job of generating correct code quickly.
> 

The job of "generating correct code quickly" is responsability
of the programmer, not of the language, nor the compiler, nor
any other's.

>
> > You're oversensitivity to criticism to your own comments, while
> > attacking others who disagree with you, truly make you out 
> > as a troll.
> > Many won't take your comments seriously and will simply ignore you
> > because of it.
> > 
> Who's throwing flames here?  YOU just said I am a troll.  And 
> I haven't insulted you once!  tu MADRE, cabron!
> 

I stand by my argument.  You do not like other's talking back
at you, and you automatically clasify it as a personal attack.

As for your last, seems you know enough spanish for that, but
I won't stoop to your level in a public newsgroup, nor will I
fall for your sad attempt to through this discussion off
track.

> All kidding aside - my response? - I am NOT a troll, but you 
> APPEAR to be a very poor debater.

I'm not kidding, I never was.

If *you* are kidding, that's a very sad thing to hear.

>
> The true test of poor-debaterhood is substitution of facts 
> and logic for unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.
> 

Indeed.

> > I already explained why I find it advantageous; you're 
> > entitled to not like mi reasons, but they're mine, and
> > I'm my own user. Is not my point of view as a user valid?
> >
> You haven't explained why this is advantageous, you have 
> merely re-stated the rules.  If you have more to say about
> this, tell me something new.

No, I will not.  I already stated my reasons and I only
got a "Tu Madre Cabrón" back; so you can keep your greed
for news to youself, I'll stick by my own reasons.

> 
> For example: why is the current design better than, say, 
> having instance variables unqualified and qualifying local
> variables with "local"?
> 
> Or better than not needing to qualify local or instance 
> variables at all - with well-defined rules for precedence
> between local and instance variables?
> 
> If you can answer these questions without making false claims 
> about me or my motives or resorting to insults or personal
> attacks, there's hope for you yet.
>

Goodbye.
--





More information about the Python-list mailing list