Class Variable Access and Assignment
apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Mon Nov 7 15:34:35 CET 2005
Op 2005-11-07, Steve Holden schreef <steve at holdenweb.com>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-11-05, Steven D'Aprano schreef <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au>:
>>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:10:11 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>>>There are good usage cases for the current inheritance behaviour. I asked
>>>>>before what usage case or cases you have for your desired behaviour, and
>>>>>you haven't answered. Perhaps you missed the question? Perhaps you haven't
>>>>>had a chance to reply yet? Or perhaps you have no usage case for the
>>>>>behaviour you want.
>>>>There are good use cases for a lot of things python doesn't provide.
>>>>There are good use cases for writable closures, but python doesn't
>>>>provide it, shrug, I can live with that. Use cases is a red herring
>>>Is that a round-about way of saying that you really have no idea of
>>>whether, how or when your proposed behaviour would be useful?
>> I am not proposing specific behaviour. Because if I do, you will
>> just try to argue how much worst my proposed behaviour is.
>> Whether or not I can come up with a better proposal is irrelevant
>> to how sane the current behaviour is.
> If you can't provide a superior alternative then you have little right
> to be questioning the present behavior.
Nonesense. Unable to produce a superior alternative doesn't make
one unable to evaluate.
>>>Personally, I think that when you are proposing a major change to a
>>>language that would break the way inheritance works, there should be more
>>>benefits to the new way than the old way.
>> How many times do I have to repeat myself. I'm not proposing a change
>> to the language.
> So you have a clear impression that Python's current behavior is
> unsatisfactory enough to be called "unsane" which,
You are generalizing my words to the point they no longer
reasonably resemble what I wrote.
>>>If you're just trolling, you've done a great job of it because you fooled
>>>me well and good. But if you are serious in your criticism about the
>>>behaviour, then stop mucking about and tell us what the behaviour should
>>>be. Otherwise your criticism isn't going to have any practical effect on
>>>the language at all.
>> I wasn't trolling. I just threw in an off hand remark. That you got so
>> heated up about that remark is not my responsibility. I'm not trolling
>> because I'm willing to defend my remark and I don't intend to get
>> people to get heated up about it. I just don't hold back because
>> people may get heated up about it.
> The defense of your original remark implies very strongly that it wasn't
> offhand, and that you are indeed trolling. Hence the reduction in the
> frequency of my replies. You make it more and more difficult to take you
Fine that goes both ways. I don't mind not being taken serious by people
I have trouble taking serious my self. No doubt that goes for you too.
So I propose we don't react to each other any longer, since there
would be very little purpose in it.
> Particularly since you have now resorted to a defense which
> involves refusing to define a non-existent word in any but the vaguest
> terms - you are trying to specify a position on the imaginary continuum
> of sanity, but you don't say how close to which end you are trying to
> specify. This puts you somewhere between "barmy" and "crackpot" on my
> own personal scale.
>>>If you are serious about wanting the behaviour changed, and not just
>>>whining, then somebody has to come up with an alternative behaviour that
>> If I would be whining I would want the behaviour changed. I would just
>> keep complaining about it until someone else would have changed it.
> Instead you just keep complaining about it, full stop.
No I don't keep complaining about. I just defend my claim.
> Since we are all
> now fully aware of your opinions, couldn't you just shut up, or do we
> have to send you to your room without any supper? Whine, whine, whine.
Well since you are aware of my opinion, why don't you just ignore
any new articles of mine in this thread and go on, instead of whining
about the fact that I care to defend what I wrote but won't put
more fuel on the fire by starting my idea about superior behaviour
which would only make this thread live longer without any chance
of coming to a shared conclusion.
> Every time I reply to you my spell checker looks at your name and shows
> me a dialog with an "ignore all" button on it. I have this increasing
> suspicion that it's trying to tell me something.
Well maybe you should listen to it. It seems damn obvious neither of
us has anything interresting to say to the other.
More information about the Python-list