Re: The big shots

Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 20/02/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's a bad sign. If you aren't keeping your thoughts to yourself, and >> thrashing about the world for a peer, a social network, a support >> group, or a community, then you missed the day in grammar school when

Re: Bored now [was Re: The big shots]

On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > Trying to decipher the fractured, incoherent ramblings of castironpi has > lost it's amusement value. I no longer care whether the poster is a bot, > or a loser nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is with few soci

Bored now [was Re: The big shots]

Trying to decipher the fractured, incoherent ramblings of castironpi has lost it's amusement value. I no longer care whether the poster is a bot, or a loser nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is with few social skills, or even a troll just playing games. I just want it to stop. Can people PL

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Feb 20, 6:02 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > For what it's worth, I've found none of your threads in the last > > few weeks to make much sense at all, because of unclear and > > incoherent writing. On that basis, I dismiss them before trying to > > re

Re: The big shots

On Feb 20, 6:02 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > My writing isn't unclear > > Please re-assess that statement in light of the dozens of responses > from many people in the last few weeks, telling you that your writing > *is* unclear. > > For what it's worth,

Re: The big shots

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > My writing isn't unclear > Please re-assess that statement Really, it may not have been clear at first, but after a while, things became clear. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My writing isn't unclear Please re-assess that statement in light of the dozens of responses from many people in the last few weeks, telling you that your writing *is* unclear. For what it's worth, I've found none of your threads in the last few weeks to make much sen

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Feb 20, 1:14 pm, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 19 Feb., 04:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> The printing press, rail, automobiles, and Python, were not in >>> prevalent use before their invention. >> True but automobiles fuelled with newspapers and d

Re: The big shots

On Feb 20, 1:14 pm, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Feb., 04:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The printing press, rail, automobiles, and Python, were not in > > prevalent use before their invention. > > True but automobiles fuelled with newspapers and driven by Pythons > still are

Re: The big shots

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > > out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? > > You imply that just because something is somehow working and eve

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 7:52 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > En Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:19:29 -0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > But 'ext' is actually good. > > Even if it were, that alone doesn't mean it should be included in the   > stdlib. > > Start writting a recipe in the Python Co

Re: The big shots

On 19 Feb., 04:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The printing press, rail, automobiles, and Python, were not in > prevalent use before their invention. True but automobiles fuelled with newspapers and driven by Pythons still aren't. Right? Not entirely sure what you are after but it sounds much lik

Re: The big shots

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> French and Spanish have impersonal pronouns: "on" and "se", >> respectively. In English, they often come out as, "we", "they", and >> "you" a lot, on occasion a "one", and sometimes, even, I. > > In Hebrew, we have 8 different words for "you". That does not affect > my En

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 7:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If not, how about these: > > - It doesn't match the rest of the language > - It's too cutting edge > - It is too hard to handle > - It would get out of hand really quickly > - I can't control you anymore after I let it in > - The functionality already

Re: The big shots

On 2008-02-20, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sergio Correia wrote: > >> I don't get this thread. At all. I want my 15 minutes back. > > I think it's a sort of Turing test, You're probably right, and I think I failed the test. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow

Re: The big shots

On 20/02/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to start marking my subjective comments with a star, so it's > clear what is emperically verifiable, and what is not. An ascii star? You do realize that email is a text medium, no? > It's a bad sign. If you aren't keeping

Re: The big shots

On 20/02/2008, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sergio Correia wrote: > > > I don't get this thread. At all. I want my 15 minutes back. > > > I think it's a sort of Turing test, to fine-tune some spammer's text > generating algorithm. You mean this: http://science.slashdot.org/article.

Re: The big shots

On 20/02/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 19, 5:31 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > > > out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? > > > > You impl

Re: The big shots

On 20/02/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My point was, that if someone is trying to make > friends, and either failing or forgetting success, then call a social > worker. Or, reach out. That's the reason why you are often ignored, Castironpi. That point has no place on this

Re: The big shots

Sergio Correia wrote: > I don't get this thread. At all. I want my 15 minutes back. I think it's a sort of Turing test, to fine-tune some spammer's text generating algorithm. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The big shots

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 13:48 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OH YEAH. Color me absent-minded. File under "No, they're not > compiled." I'd ask what you're trying to say here if I had any hope of understanding the answer. It is becoming clear to me that I am not worthy of communicating with you.

Re: The big shots

I don't get this thread. At all. I want my 15 minutes back. (OTOH, some of your replies were quite funny or interesting, including - as usual - Gabriel and Steve's) On Feb 19, 2008 11:29 PM, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-02-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Re: The big shots

On 2008-02-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is a a homile? It's a misspelling of homily. :) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! It's hard being at an ARTIST!! visi.com

Re: The big shots

En Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:19:29 -0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > But 'ext' is actually good. Even if it were, that alone doesn't mean it should be included in the stdlib. Start writting a recipe in the Python Cookbook: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/ Upload the module to

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 5:31 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > May I insist?  By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > > out 'ext'.  If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason.  What is it? > > You imply that just because something is somehow working and even useful > for a *

Re: The big shots

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 14:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? I didn't "rule out" 'ext'. I have no say over what goes or doesn't go into the Python standard

Re: The big shots

> > May I insist? By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules > out 'ext'. If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason. What is it? You imply that just because something is somehow working and even useful for a *some* people (some being maybe only you) that it would be worth includ

Re: The big shots

On 19 fév, 21:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Feb 19, 5:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > > >> I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. > > > (snip remaining of mostly inarticulate post, just couldn'

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 5:25 pm, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-02-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even on my emperical claims, I'm wrong 90% of the time. On > > the subjective ones, I'm not only wrong that much, but no one > > else want to hear, or even can verify th

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Feb 19, 3:15 pm, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Ok, take this one.  C is faster than Python.  It would be useful, in > > > certain cases, to write C. > > > > I

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 4:25 pm, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-02-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm going to start marking my subjective comments with a star, > > so it's clear what is emperically verifiable, and what is not. > > > It's a bad sign. > > I've no idea

Re: The big shots

On 2008-02-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to start marking my subjective comments with a star, > so it's clear what is emperically verifiable, and what is not. > > It's a bad sign. I've no idea what "it" refers to in the sentence above. > If you aren't keeping your

Re: The big shots

, and partly because of the poor job you do to explain > them. > > By the way, you may have noticed that you have been mostly replying to > your own posts here in c.l.py, which indicates that the lack of > responses has nothing to do with the supposed snobbishness of the "big

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 3:15 pm, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ok, take this one.  C is faster than Python.  It would be useful, in > > certain cases, to write C. > > > It is possible but inconvenient, out of the way. > > Making that e

Re: The big shots

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ok, take this one. C is faster than Python. It would be useful, in > certain cases, to write C. > > It is possible but inconvenient, out of the way. Making that easier is a worthy goal... > Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:48:51 -0800 (PST

Re: The big shots

On Feb 19, 5:17 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > >> I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. > > (snip remaining of mostly inarticulate post, just couldn't make sens of > it - as usual) > > > No idea what's wrong with these people

Re: The big shots

Diez B. Roggisch a écrit : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: >> I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. (snip remaining of mostly inarticulate post, just couldn't make sens of it - as usual) > No idea what's wrong with these people here - but I bet if you team up > with Illias, you can st

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. > > Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as > Python, have received partial evaluation from the alphas. > > Lesser individuals than they could not have invented Python, and would > be lia

Re: The big shots

that you have been mostly replying to your own posts here in c.l.py, which indicates that the lack of responses has nothing to do with the supposed snobbishness of the "big shots". George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The big shots

En Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:14:10 -0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. > > Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as > Python, have received partial evaluation from the alphas. (Note that I'm not a Python alpha, I don't v

Re: The big shots

On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Feb 18, 10:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >> Paul Rubin   wrote: > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Re: The big shots

gy back into the world of software development, software features only get built if it's feasible to build them. Unless you want to contribute by building those features yourself, you're relinquishing the decision of what's feasible to the "big shots". You get

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Paul Rubin wrote: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well

Re: The big shots

On Feb 18, 10:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Paul Rubin   wrote: > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > >>>Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as > >>>Python, have received

Re: The big shots

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>> >>>Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as >>>Python, have received partial evaluation from the alphas. >> >> What do you mean by "a

Re: The big shots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > >Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as > >Python, have received partial evaluation from the alphas. > > What do you mean by "alphas"? Alpha test releases are the round of test distributions before the beta tests, which come before

Re: The big shots

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. What exactly are you dissatisfied with? This post reminds me of one reason why your ideas have not been well received: it is difficult to understand what your point is. Perhaps Engl

Re: The big shots

ing through http://www.python.org/dev/peps/ , their own proposals > don't meet their own criteria. Start there. > > It is neither necessary nor sufficient that an expansion is or would > be used. Well it isn't a democracy, that's true. The "big shots" are the

The big shots

I'm a little dissatisfied, and just thinking aloud. Some of the ideas that have been proposed on Python-ideas as well as Python, have received partial evaluation from the alphas. Lesser individuals than they could not have invented Python, and would be liable to ban me merely for this post. Notw