On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 at 20:56 Simon Lovell <simon58...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I feel I have to respond to this one. > And as list admin I feel I now have to reply to this to help explain why people reacted the way they have. > > > More than half of what I suggested could have and should be implemented. > It's this sort of attitude which puts people off. It is your *opinion* that it should be implemented, not a matter of fact as you have stated it. Just because something could be done doesn't mean it should be done. You're allowed to have your opinion, but stating it as anything but your opinion does not engender anyone to your opinion. > In particular the truthiness of non-boolean data and the lack of a > reasonable SQL syntax. Several other points have been discussed > endlessly on the internet but without a satisfactory (IMO) answer being > given. I disagree, but that's fine since, as you said, that's your opinion and you're allowed to not like the decisions we have made in designing Python. > I don't know what is meant by some insults having been thrown in. > Calling truthiness of non boolean data "Ugly" is an insult? It is ugly. > Now *that *is insulting to me. Once again, you are allowed to disagree and say you don't like how truthiness is handled in Python, but you flat-out stating something is ugly insults all the time and effort that me and the other core developers have put into Python to try and make it the best language we can with the constraints we have to work within. Put another way, would you find it reasonable to walk up to me at a conference and just say straight to my face "the way truthiness is implemented is ugly"? Or would you more likely come up to me and say "I don't happen to like how truthiness is implemented, could we have a chat as to why it is the way it is so I can understand how it came to be this way?" Notice how the former puts you on offensive footing like you're lecturing me while the latter is you asking a question to try and understand why something is the way it is that you happen to not like. One approach is respectful of the volunteer effort me and everyone else puts into Python, the other is not. This list exists to be open to people's ideas, but those ideas must be communicated in a considerate, respectful manner or else they will be ignored (and those three tenants are directly from the Code of Conduct). So I am politely asking you -- and reminding everyone else -- to simply be respectful and considerate of everyone here who is trying to have an open conversation. My rule of thumb is to talk as if you're asking a complete stranger to do you a favour (which you in fact are since you're asking strangers to read your email and to take its contents seriously). If we all did that then we wouldn't have issues here with how people communicate.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
