Pythonification of the asterisk-based collection packing/unpacking syntax

[Joshua Landau]

On 20 December 2011 01:18, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply support for the syntax proposal.  Just
> reacting to the (seemingly unrelated) comment that a customer with foolish
> access policies would not be worthy of your business.  Only because I've
> been in the situation of having to provide remote support to major
> customers with similar absurd policies :-)
>

Nononono! I wasn't referring to you! I was referring to the whole topic.
You just happened to be that last person to say something.

Sorry about that, I should have been clearer...


> On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>
> On 20 December 2011 00:30, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mailman.3827.1324331890.27778.python-list at python.org>,
>>  Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But what about the example he gave about being logged into a customer's
>> > machine with only ed available? I suppose such fools would not be worthy
>> > of your business.
>>
>> The customer is always right.  Especially when the support contract is
>> big enough to make or break your quarter.
>> --
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>>
>
> This whole conversation is ridiculous. Do we really want a syntax that's
> worse just to satisfy the 1/10,000 cases* where someone will be using ed or
> notepad?
>
> Correct Answer: no.
>
> * Probably less, as I use vim many_times_a_day * many_days_a_year - and
> even less if we consider that no-one'll be doing as much coding in an hour
> of ed as in an hour of <better_editor>
>
>
>
> --
> Roy Smith
> roy at panix.com
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20111220/0e7f9bb4/attachment.html>