lacking follow-through

castironpi castironpi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 05:58:53 CEST 2008


On Sep 8, 2:21 pm, Grant Edwards <gra... at visi.com> wrote:
> On 2008-09-08, Chris Rebert <c... at rebertia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Eric Wertman <ewert... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> To expand on this a little bit, I've been subscribed to this
> >> group for a couple of months, but there seems to be a bit more
> >> gray area between what would go to a 'python-dev' group and a
> >> 'python-user' group.  Long debates about language features and
> >> abstract ideas would appeal to the former, but not the latter.
> >> Certainly I fall into the user category..  I'm pretty happy
> >> with python, and generally just adjust to it's design and
> >> features, rather than spend lots of time on whether they are
> >> 'right' or could be 'better'.  /shrug
>
> > Yeah, suggestions about changing the language are much better
> > suited to the more-specific Python-ideas or Python-3000
> > mailinglists than the general-purpose c.l.p
>
> I don't think anybody here in c.l.p minds reading suggestions
> for language features/changes, but often what the poster in
> question writes is just an incomprehensible collection of
> vaguely philosophical-sounding metaphores and similes
> reminiscent of a hoax paper submitted as a joke to a
> post-modern "journal" of some pretend science or other.
>
> --
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Used staples are good
>                                   at               with SOY SAUCE!
>                                visi.com            

I would almost say Grant's criticism is too harsh, and I don't think
'incomprehensible metaphors' is really a problem on Py-Dev or CL-Py,
though I feel that sometimes people aren't posting in earnest.  I
certainly have heard some in real life though.

In some cases, I have observed that people are expressing things that
they genuinely have perceived, and merely haven't applied the logic
necessary to notice the inconsistency in their metaphor, which is the
thing that makes them 'incomprehensible' to mature logicians like
Grant.

For example, I sometimes hear people talk about salary as though it
were social approval, and vice versa.  Even though the analogy doesn't
hold in every case generally, it is still a good way to express
yourself in many contexts, and especially when the more precise word
isn't on the tip of your tongue.



More information about the Python-list mailing list