On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:54:10 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> No, classes DO NOT exist at runtime OR compile time! Classes are only
> *structured text* (or code if you prefer) that instruct Python to build
> *real* MEMORY OBJECTS for us. The "magic" that you are witnessing is
> Python, not classes.
U
On Jan 15, 1:28 pm, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll
>
> Doesn't matter. He duck types as one.
+1
Intent isn't magic. If Rick intends to contribute, he could actually
contribute.
--
http://mail.python.org/
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:37 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:46:44 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> Your knowledge of English has failed you. Here is the first definition
> from Webster's Dictionary (1913 edition):
>
> Class [...]
>1. A group of individua
On 15 Jan 2013 02:08:38 GMT
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Rick Johnson is a well-known troll.
>
> I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll
Doesn't matter. He duck types as one.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:57:58 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Rick Johnson is a well-known troll.
I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll makes
statements that he doesn't believe are true, simply in order to get a
response. I do not believe that Rick is doing that. I thi
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:00:13 -0600, Tim Chase wrote:
> Clearly Python should use a keyword like "Kingdom" or "Phylum" instead.
> I guess "Kingdom" should be reserved for metaclasses (or would they be
> metaphylums? or metaphyla?)
Metaphyla, of course.
>kingdom Baz:
> pass
>
>phy
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:43:34 -, Peter wrote:
Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown
up.
Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader -
somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?
Now read the rest of the thread
On 15 January 2013 07:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Oh, and Dennis? Mal. Bad. From the Latin. :)
>
I was about to point out the same thing, using the same quote ;)
Tim Delaney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Peter wrote:
> Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown up.
>
> Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader -
> somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?
>
> Real mature - certainly gives P
Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown up.
Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader - somebody
offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?
Real mature - certainly gives Python a good name having followers like this...
But then
On 01/14/13 11:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Your knowledge of English has failed you. Here is the first definition
from Webster's Dictionary (1913 edition):
Class \Class\ (kl[.a]s), n. [F. classe, fr. L. classis class,
collection, fleet; akin to Gr. klh^sis a calling, kalei^n to
call, E.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:46:44 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> I have believed for a very long time that "class" was a poor choice of
> keyword to designate an "object definition".
>
> Firstly, the word /class/ does not transform smoothly into CS from
> English. NO English definition of "class" comes
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:56:08 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Awesome! Now, just one more step to make Python into the World's Most
> Awesome Language(tm): Replace those lengthy words with single symbols
> found in the Unicode set; compress everything down and enforce perfect
> Unicode handling. Als
On 01/14/13 01:56, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
I really don't like using two words ("define object", or "def obj") and using one single keyword is ambiguous ("object"
or "obj"). So the obvious solution is to combine the abbreviated words into one
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> I really don't like using two words ("define object", or "def obj") and using
> one single keyword is ambiguous ("object" or "obj"). So the obvious solution
> is to combine the abbreviated words into one compound keyword that will save
> ke
On Monday 1-14-2013 at 12:46 AM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> "object":
>
> This is my favorite word however it does suffer a
> "verbial" disconnection. What are we suggesting? A single
> word can be very ambiguous as to intent. However, if we
> couple the word "object" with the word "define" we
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Dear language designers: Stop propagating such foolish terminology! End the
> infection of "class" in all source code, docs, and daily conversation. Be
> more consistent and logical. Resist temptation to use poor terminology simply
> becaus
I have believed for a very long time that "class" was a poor choice of keyword
to designate an "object definition".
Firstly, the word /class/ does not transform smoothly into CS from English. NO
English definition of "class" comes anywhere close to describing the
"structured source code that d
18 matches
Mail list logo
