On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:37:35 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Rick, you're supposedly familiar with Ruby. And yet, you didn't notice
>> that your supposed "fix" didn't touch any executable code, all it did
>> was modify the strings being printed.
>
> Because the goal was to *UN-OBFUSCATE* the code, not to provide a
> solution for the problem _you_ created.
Printing a string and calling a function is obfuscated code? Deary me.
And besides, while I'm more than happy to take (undeserved) credit for
all the things Ruby gets right, I draw the line at being blamed for Ruby
misfeatures like parens-less function calls, and the inconsistent
behaviour they lead to.
>> Because of this "fix", the printed strings no longer match the code
>> being executed, but the strange, inconsistent behaviour still occurs.
>
> The supposed "inconsistent behavior" here has absolutely nothing to do
> with Ruby, no, it's all on _you_. _YOU_ are the one who created a
> non-sensical function
I love watching you trying to squirm your way out of admitting that you
screwed up. Returning the input plus two is nonsensical is it?
Thank the gods I didn't add *three*, your head probably would have
exploded in confusion.
> with a single char name; and _YOU_ are the one who
> placed a call to that function in the middle of an expression, which, on
> first glance, looks to be a common numeric addition or string
> concatenation. There are no syntactical clues that `a` is a function.
As I said, don't blame me for Ruby's poor design.
By the way, there are precisely the same number of clues that:
a
is a function as there are for:
super
in Ruby. But you know that, because you were vehemently defending the use
of super with no parens and why it isn't inconsistent for it to do
something completely different from super() with parens.
> Thus, it is _YOU_ who is to blame for the supposed "unexpected output".
>
> Ruby followed the rules.
>
> But you didn't.
So now you're claiming I hacked the Ruby interpreter to support non-
standard code? I can smell the desperation in you from the other side of
the planet.
Rick, nothing I did was illegal Ruby code. Everything I did was 100%
following the rules of the Ruby language.
But you know that. I'm just enjoying watching you trying to weasel out of
acknowledging that you massive screwed up by editing the strings instead
of the function calls.
I look forward to reading your increasingly desperate claims that it was
not only intentional but the correct thing to do.
--
Steve
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
