Python's simplicity philosophy

[Curt]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:54:03 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Curt wrote:
 
> > No, he didn't contrive an example.  Please don't invent things.
 
> I posted another example, totally unrelated to your flirty/curty

Oh yes, you did.  Was that the contrived example he was referring to?

I actually thought he was alluding to your contrived example which was
a variation on the theme of my contrived example.  Why did I think that?

Let's go back to the context of the whole shebang which you've cut.

He quotes you, then me, then speaks out himself:

You:
"You don't really think the sequence [flirty, curty, curty, flirty]
is sorted, do you?"

Me:
"Well, you did do something to the sample for which you fail to find
a more descriptive word than "tweak"."

Him:
"He contrived an example that demonstrated his point."

Then I say the following thing, which you truncated:

"No, he didn't contrive an example.  Please don't invent things.  He
tooked my perfectly good and reasonable example of a file containing 
redundant entries and "tweaked" it in order to make the entries of type 
"curty" contiguous.

Well, the whole thing is not as clearly a case of bad reading as you say
it is.  

> nonsense, that demonstrated that uniq could do something meaningful with
> a totally unsorted file.  Please read things.