Modifying Class Object

Steve Holden steve at holdenweb.com
Sun Feb 14 02:44:47 CET 2010


Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * Michael Sparks:
>>> [Due to the appearance of reasoned discussion (it's not practical to
>>> read it all!)
>> [...]
>>>> Therefore to say "in reality the implementation will be passing a
>>>> reference or pointer" is invalid. There is after all at least one
>>>> implementation that does not rely on such machine oriented language
>>>> details.
>>> I'm sorry, but see above: in itself it's just yet another a fallacy.
>>>
>>> And as an argument in a debate with me it's misrepresenting.
>>>
>> I see we are still all out of step with you.
> 
> Why did you snip the short argument?
> 
Because it's irrelevant and fallacious.
> 
>> If it's a fallacy then I'd
>> like to see a reasoned logical explanation of its fallaciousness.
> 
> Oh, you snipped it so that you didn't have to present it to readers.
> 
> That's dishonest, Steve Holden.
> 
> Requoting:
> 
> <quote>
>> Now let's move to the implementation aspects.
>>
>> Python as a language is implemented in many languages. One of these
>> is C. There are compilers to C (pypy), C++ (shedskin), for the JVM
>> (Jython) and .net (Ironpython).
>>
>> There is also an executable operation semantics for python,
>> which can be found here:
>>
>>
> http://gideon.smdng.nl/2009/01/an-executable-operational-semantics-for-python/
> 
>>
>> This set of operational semantics is written in Haskell.
>>
>> Haskell is a strictly pure, lazily evaluated language. It
>> therefore has no pointers or references, just values and names.
>> The implementation therefore cannot be in terms of references
>> and pointers.
> 
> At this point consider whether it's possible to implement Pascal in
> Haskell.
> 
> If it is possible, then you have a problem wrt. drawing conclusions
> about pointers in Pascal, uh oh, they apparently can't exist.
> 
> But if it is not possible to implement Pascal in Haskell, then Haskell
> must be some etremely limited special-purpose language, not Turing
> complete  --  is that acceptable to you?
> <quote>
> 
This, if it says anything at all, appears to say that any
Turing-complete language has pointers in it, which is an absurdity.
> 
>> As far as I can see, if someone says "implementing Python implies the
>> use of pointers" as you appear to be doing, then Michael's argument
>> neatly demolishes that argument by providing a counter-example: there is
>> an implementation of Python that does not use pointers.
> 
> That's meaningless.
> 
> But then so is maintaining that Python doesn't have references.
> 
> And so is your argument applied to Pascal, just to mention that again.
> 
*You* brought Pascal into this, not me.
> 
>> You, however, dismiss this as a fallacy, and suggests it somehow
>> misrepresents you. And yet you wonder why people call your behavior (not
>> you) paranoid.
> 
> On top of the multiple fallacies, dubious snipping of arguments,
> statements that such arguments have not been presented (just after
> snipping them), and general misleading insinuations and
> misrepresentation, ad yet another bit of personal attack.
> 
> Do you understand what that may say to readers about you, Steve Holden?
> 
I'm happy to let readers draw their own conclusions about us both.

> Apparently it's all to defend an indefensible, idiotic position. But I
> think you're doing it at least partially for the fun of harassing someone.
>
Not at all. You have accused me of bullying behavior, but  in truth you
are the bully, and we know what happens when you give in to bullies,
don't we?
> 
>> [...]
>>>> I sincerely hope that my reply does not offend or inflame you, since
>>>> that is not the intent. I do hope it educates you and puts
>>>> into context the responses you have gained from others.
>>>>
>>>> After all, one simply shouting in a corner saying "YOU'RE ALL
>>>> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I'M RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT", when one does not to
>>>> understand what one is talking about does not tend to engender warm
>>>> fluffy feelings or sentiments of authority towards such an
>>>> individual. Be it me, you, or anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, you appear to me to be engaging in such a behaviour.
>>>> Now you don't know from Jack and probably don't care about  my
>>>> viewpoint, but I would really appreciate it if you would try not to
>>>> be inflammatory in your response to this. (Since you do appear to
>>>> also have a need to have the last word)
>>>>
>>>> Hoping this was useful on some level,
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I elected to respond to just /one/ of the many arguments you
>>> presented.
>>>
>>> The other arguments, about why there are no references in Python,
>>> shared, however, the basic property of being logical fallacies
>>> packaged in kilometers of rambling text.
>>>
>> And you can say this without, by your own admission, even reading it.
> 
> No, you can not quote any place I have said that I haven't read his
> article. I did read most of it. So you are yet again within the span of
> one posted article presenting untrue information that you know is not true.
> 
I repeat the quote from you which you can read at the top of this post:
>>> [Due to the appearance of reasoned discussion (it's not practical to
>>> read it all!)
>> [...]
So now you say you read "most" of it. Even this statement is an
admission that there are parts you did not, and yet somehow *I* am the
liar? We are moving from the bizarre to the delusional here.
> 
>> It
>> makes me wonder why we have paid you the compliment of engaging you in
>> debate,
> 
> Gosh, I don't know. You must be stupid to do that. Yes?
> 
Apparently.
> 
>> since this is the most transparent evidence to date that what
>> comes back will be unrelated to the arguments presented.
> 
> That is untrue, Steve Holden, and since you can't quote that "evidence",
> since you evidently /have/ read my short article which you're responding
> to, knowing exactly what to snip, you know that what you're saying is
> untrue. I think this is your third lie in one posting. But who would
> care to count.
> 
Who indeed?
> 
> Cheers & hth.,
> 
That signature surely has to be irony.

Steve
-- 
Steve Holden           +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010  http://us.pycon.org/
Holden Web LLC                 http://www.holdenweb.com/
UPCOMING EVENTS:        http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/




More information about the Python-list mailing list