Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]
Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Thu Jul 31 05:44:40 CEST 2008
On Jul 30, 8:24 pm, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:03 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
> > Russ P. wrote:
> > > The reason I wrote that "it would be nice to be able to write"
> > > if x is not empty:
> > > is that it reads naturally. It was not an actual proposal, and the
> > > fact that you took it as such was *your* mistake.
> > ...
> > > Now read carefully: I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT! Let
> > > me repeat that for you: I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT!
> > > Did you get that, idiot?
> > So people who can read words but not minds are idiots. Go get 'em, tiger!
> I don't know if you can read minds, but you seem to have a lot of
> trouble reading words.
> Can you read "it would be nice to be able to write ..."? Can you
> understand what it means? Can you understand that it does *not* mean,
> "one *should* be able to write ..."?
> The really significant question here is why I waste my valuable time
> with pedants like you.
Folks, I'm sorry for being so harsh here. But this guy keeps insisting
that I dispayed a "fundamental lack of understanding" of the correct
usage of "is" in Python. If that were true, I would have gladly
admitted it and dropped the matter. But it is completely false. The
simple fact is that I fully understood how "is" works in Python from
the first time I read about it -- as I'm sure most others here did
too. It just gets my goat that someone would latch onto some whimsical
suggestion I wrote to try to prove otherwise.
He did not need to play that silly little game, and he could have
easily avoided my insults had he not played it.
More information about the Python-list