Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

rurpy at yahoo.com rurpy at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 3 18:50:10 CET 2013

On 11/02/2013 11:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
> Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
> a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
> good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

Steven, "presumption of good faith" is typical of the 
disingenuous remarks that have permeated your posts 
in this thread.

Early on, I misrepresented you by claiming you thought
Skybuck's proposal was "nutty" rather than that you 
simply and reasonably disagreed with it [*1].  I also 
used the phrase "makes no sense" implying it came from 
you rather than from Skybuck as it had [*2].

However in pointing my mistake out [*3], you did so 
with remarks like:

 "You're making that quote up"
 "that you would invent such a bare-faced falsehood
 "that it is the *opposite* of what I actually said
 "I don't know whether you are deliberately lying"
 "you're just such a careless reader" 

As soon as you pointed out my mistake, I immediately 
acknowledged and corrected it [*4].  You continued 
with the outrage and attacks on my character.

Bad faith in my part indeed.  The nice thing about 
email is that there exists a record that anyone can 
refer to if they want to discern the truth.

[*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/e6Xs56paZSoJ
[*2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/yDJJER6EJiIJ
[*3] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/SwMcqPLMwjgJ
[*4] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/7fLfIxBG4UUJ

More information about the Python-list mailing list