terminological obscurity

[Michael Geary]

Arthur... May I offer you a nice glass of homogenized milk?

Enjoy!

-Mike

"Arthur" <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote in message
news:0dvcb0dtdbelmjr9j4s0599unvebicd1ug at 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:30:40 +0200, "Martin v. Löwis"
> <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> >
> >It is very clear to my why he did not say what Donn said - because
> >he thought that the notion of homogenous and heterogenous is obvious
> >to anybody.
>
> FIRST
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
> The name of our thread is "terminological obscurity". And I expect
> that the orignal poster had as good a grasp as you (or I) as to the
> meaning of homogenous and heterogenous.
>
> And it is certainly easy for Martin or Donn to assume that we are
> talking technically over the head of someone like myself.  I'll go
> fuirther and allow us to assume that is part of what is going on.
>
> Another part of what is going on has nothing to do with that at all.
> It is about lnaguage and it is about logic and it is about the
> dynamics of groups.
>
> My involvement in this discussion began in reaction to a statment made
> to the typical question about why tuples *and* lists are in the
> language:
>
> Assume """ surrounds *exact* quotes from the newsgropup.
>
> """
> It's a common question. A list is a data structure that is
> intended to be used with homogenous members; that is,
> with members of the same type.
> """
>
> and in defense of a challange to this statement based on the
> flexibility of Python of handling data of different types in a list,
> came this response:
>
> """
> This is perfectly true, but that's the intention. Guido says
> so himself. Lots of people either don't believe him, or
> don't understand him.
> """
>
> So that, in effect, was the first time I was told that the problem is
> I don't understand what Guido meant, i.e. I didn't understand that
> lists were designed to be used " with homogenous members, that is
> weith members of the same type".
>
> Thankfully Donn interceded at that point to bring the dicussion more
> onto a sensible track.
>
> And as a result:
>
> We all agree, (do we not) at this point - even the poster of these
> remarks -   if that is what Guido in fact meant, I was doing good not
> to understand him, (or believe him if I did.)
>
> SECOND
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
> When Donn thought the terminology "homogenous data" and "hetereogenous
> data" in the context of the discussionss were coming from me, or other
> "unofficial" sources, he implied strongly that the use of this
> terminology was part of what was creating some misunderstanding of the
> concepts involved.
>
> When I told him the terminology was not mine, but Guido's my lack of
> understanding (that being the constant) now became that I didn't
> understand what Guido meant when he used the terminology which was a
> moment ago unacceptable.  That is the second time I was told the
> problem  was *my* capacity to understand what Guido meant.
> >
> >He then *also* said something about how static typing might be
> >introduced into Python - but that was about possible static typing,
> >not about the terms "homogenous" and "heterogenous". Even with
> >static typing, it might be possible to declare a list that is
> >statically typed, contains homogenous data, and yet contains
> >objects as different as None and a module. The type of this
> >list might be "list of (NoneType union ModuleType)", better
> >declared as "list of optional ModuleType".
>
> THIRD
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
>
> Donn. who I think we agree, brought some light to this discussion did
> state clearly, I think, that the use of the "homogenous data" (in
> describing for example  None and a module) is bad and misleading
> terminolgy.  Perhaps, because it supports too well a supposition that
> we are only talking in tautologies. What can be said be homogenous
> about such data, outside of the membership in a list?  Donn suggests
> the list is homogenous, even if the data is not, in any meaningful
> sense.  I think I understand that a bit.
>
> Yet you insist, with a fresh start on all this, on using the
> terminology "homogenous data".
>
> I don't understand Martin any better thatn I understand Guido.
>
> In fact I am totally lost.
>
> Art
>