Op 19-06-16 om 23:20 schreef BartC: > On 19/06/2016 15:35, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 12-06-16 om 23:10 schreef BartC: >>> On 12/06/2016 20:25, Ned Batchelder wrote: >>>> Just as here there is no link between x >>>> and y: >>>> >>>> x = 12 >>>> y = x >>> >>> (And that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to >>> 'x', referring to the "...ducks limp" thread. But best not to rake >>> it up again...) >>> >> I find this rather inaccurate reference to what your opposition is >> supposed to have states together with the remark best not to rake >> this up again, rather disingenuous >> > > > Sorry, haven't been able to parse that. > > What is inaccurate? What am I supposed to be opposed to? And why is it > disingenuous? The original thread is still open to posts AFAIK if > someone wants to discuss it further.
You are denying a position above. So you oppose the position being denied. However noone defended the position you denied. So denying a position here and thus suggesting there are people who defend that position is inaccurate. And it is disingenuous to inaccurately mention others people's position and then to try to screen yourself off from reactions by ending with: "Best not to rake it up again." -- Antoon Pardon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
