* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Robert Kern:
[...]
No, it only argues that "with Cleanup():" is supernumerary.
I don't know what "supernumerary" means, but to the degree that the
argument says anything about a construct that is not 'finally', it says
the same about general "with".
So rather than look up the meaning if a word you aren't familiar with
you will argue against its use in generic style?
I haven't argued against the use of the word. I haven't done so in generic
style, and I haven't argued against generic style use of the word, whatever it
is you're trying to say. And I see that you're out trolling again, Steve Holden,
implying all sorts of things that are untrue, as is evidently still your style.
So whatever you mean by supernumerary, you're saying that the argument
implies that "with" is supernumerary.
This is starting to look like some earlier discussions in this group,
where even basic logic is denied.
Why not just stick to the facts and forget about the earlier discussions?
For yet another example, here you are implying that I'm not sticking to facts,
which, again, is untrue, a technique that you should be ashamed of, Steve Holden.
And since you're now injecting some Steve Holden'sk noise into this debate,
chances are that in your points- and win/lose fixation you think I have scored a
point immediately upthread, something which you think needs drowning in noise.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
