Re: Poor corporate communication culture - was Re: syntax oddities

On Sun, 20 May 2018 20:39:44 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote: > Nine times out of ten, a top posted reply from a manager is a sure sign > he hasn't bothered to read anything of what I actually wrote. Instead he > just answers the question he thought I asked. And the other one time out of ten, he's

Poor corporate communication culture - was Re: syntax oddities

On 05/18/2018 06:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > There are two completely independent cultures here. In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting > is common, conventional, and frankly,

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:55:52PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > You work someplace pretty unique. Everyplace I've worked has done the > whole top-posting and include the whole damn thread in reverse order > thing. It just doesn't work. The attached reverse-chronological > history doesn't seem

Re: syntax oddities

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:56:41AM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote: > Allow me to add an additional reason for trimming and responding > beneath each quoted section: it puts the response in the proper > context. And another one I learned recently on a similar conversation on another mailing list

Re: syntax oddities

Grant Edwards : > And most people seem to believe that if they read more that the first > two sentences of any e-mail it might trigger the apocolypse or give > their cat scabies or something else dreadful. I quickly glance at the hundred or so subject lines every

Re: syntax oddities

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > If the thread forks, and someone is brought into one of the forks to > help with an issue brought up in THAT fork, then the context will > generally be sufficient for that. That assumes that they don't need any

Re: syntax oddities

On 5/18/18 10:38 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Richard Damon > wrote: >> I would divide the two communities/cultures differently. Top Posting is >> reasonable, effective and common in an environment where the primary >> recipients of the

Re: syntax oddities

On 2018-05-18, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:25:52 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > >> In "Corporate" cultures like where I work (where IT and business >> functions interact a lot, and business users typically use tools >> like Outlook)

Re: syntax oddities

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > I would divide the two communities/cultures differently. Top Posting is > reasonable, effective and common in an environment where the primary > recipients of the message can be assumed to have read, and likely >

Re: syntax oddities

On 5/18/18 8:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 18 May 2018 at 12:08, Rhodri James wrote: > There are two completely independent cultures here. In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:25:52 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting is > common, conventional, and frankly, effective. I don't believe that email is

Re: syntax oddities

On 18/05/18 13:25, Paul Moore wrote: Arguing about how the community's conventions are wrong is also impolite:-) It's not an argument, it's a contradiction :-) I'm reminded of the old stereotypes of Brits speaking English NICE AND LOUDLY to foreigners to help them understand what we're

Re: syntax oddities

On 18 May 2018 at 12:08, Rhodri James wrote: > On 17/05/18 23:44, Paul wrote: >> >> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group >> emails >> at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted >> on, bottom posting. > > I've

Re: syntax oddities

bartc writes: > On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: > >>> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails >>> at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM, bartc wrote: > On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: > > >>> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group >>> emails >>> at many tech companies,

Re: syntax oddities

On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted on, bottom posting. If someone's

Re: syntax oddities

On 17/05/18 23:44, Paul wrote: I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted on, bottom posting. I've been using email for thirty years, etc, etc, and I've always insisted on proper

Re: syntax oddities

Chris Angelico writes: > Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? This applies to italian as well, accordingly to one my signatures, that roughly corresponds to the following: Because it is contrary to the normal sense of reading > What's wrong with

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, 18 May 2018 08:38:31 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber > wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:18:32 -0700, Tobiah declaimed >> the following: >> >>>Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through a

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: >> >> >> That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, where >> the >> quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely >> provided a week earlier (snail mail). >> >> But mailing

Re: syntax oddities

> > > That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, where > the > quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely > provided a week earlier (snail mail). > > But mailing lists/newsgroups are the equivalent of a bulletin board > open to anyone

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:18:32 -0700, Tobiah declaimed the > following: > >>Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through >>a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom >>is only

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, 18 May 2018, Chris Angelico wrote: Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned upon on this list? Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. Allow me to add an additional reason for trimming and responding beneath each quoted section: it puts

Re: syntax oddities

wrote: > > Is it frowned > > upon on this list? > > Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. > > ChrisA > - > kk. Thanks Paul > > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: syntax oddities

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Paul wrote: > Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned > upon on this list? Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: syntax oddities

Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned upon on this list? On Thu, May 17, 2018, 7:26 AM Tobiah wrote: > Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through > a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom > is only for occasional

Re: syntax oddities

Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom is only for occasional reference. Ok, I yield! I know the bottom-posting party has congress right now. On 05/17/2018 06:29 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2018-05-17, Abdur-Rahmaan

Re: syntax oddities

On 2018-05-17, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to > python [...] > On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < > steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400,

Re: syntax oddities

On Tue, 15 May 2018, 23:15 Tobiah, wrote: Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? It's part of the design philosophy of Python that the namespace of a new user-defined class should as far as possible start off as a "blank slate", not cluttered up

Re: syntax oddities

just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to python Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer

Re: syntax oddities

On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > weird, still not much traffic on this thread How many ways would you like us to answer the question? It is a FAQ: https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html Here's an older version:

Re: syntax oddities

weird, still not much traffic on this thread Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ On Tue, 15 May 2018, 23:15 Tobiah, wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? > > etc... > >

Re: syntax oddities

On Tue, May 15, 2018, 6:00 PM Steven D'Aprano < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:10:07 -0700, Tobiah wrote: > > > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Because we're not serfs in the Kingdom of Nouns: > >

Re: syntax oddities

On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:10:07 -0700, Tobiah wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? Because we're not serfs in the Kingdom of Nouns: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: syntax oddities

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Tobiah wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)?

Re: syntax oddities

15.05.18 22:10, Tobiah пише: Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? Because the first form looked better to Guido van Rossum. Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? How do you get the 'getattr' attribute then? --

syntax oddities

Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? etc... Thanks -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list