Modifying Class Object
in [Python]
|
From: Steve Holden on 11 Feb 2010 10:59 Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > * Steve Holden: [...] >> In this particular part of the thread I am attempting, unsuccessfully, >> to convince you that a change in *your* behavior would lead to less >> hostility directed towards the way you present your ideas. >> >> You apparently feel it is quite acceptable to tell people to "learn to >> read", > > I have not used that expression. > > However I have suggest and emphasized that it might help to *read* > whatever one quotes, when the quoted material (such as one paragraph) > has not been read. > > Telling someone to "learn to read" is a Steve Holden'sk way to imply > that the person is an ignoramus who hasn't bothered to learn to read. > Telling a person to read something that's obviously not been read is > quite another matter. So, you are misrepresenting -- again -- and in > a quite revealing way, sorry. > Pardon me? You used it on December 16 in a response to Mensanator in message <hgbri8$e17$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> M :> How about devoting a section on downloading the source files M :> and compiling it on a Mac? AS:> Learn to read. AS:> At the top of every second page it tells you that this is an AS:> introduction based on Windows. I am sure you will have some glib response as to why this wasn't rude at all. Allow me to correct you - it was, and rudeness is not welcomed on comp.lang.python. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen (why, I have even been known to be rude myself - we are none of us perfect, after all). I have already given ample evidence that when I am wrong I will admit it. You, contrariwise, maintain that you will admit when you are wrong (I believe 40% of the time was the figure you used) but I fail to remember any single incident when you made such an admission. >> and calling their assertions "bullshit", > > Yes, in this group, but only for personal attacks. > > Such as yours. > > I think I've shown extreme restraint in the face of bullying from you > and some followers, and calling the insinuations bullshit is quite mild. I don't have "followers". Assertions I make are my own, and stand alone without the need of support. Calling them "bullshit" is indeed quite mild, but doesn't invalidate them. You can only do that by engaging, but instead you hysterically shout "ad hominem" whenever anyone makes a personal remark. > >> but when we try to point >> out aspects of your behavior that are either undesirable or unacceptable >> we are indulging in "ad hominem attacks". > > That is an untrue and extremely misleading description of what you've > been doing. > I'll let that be judged on the record. You have consistently refused to accept, despite assertions from several individuals (presumably those you choose to characterize as my "followers", thereby allowing you to write them off without seriously considering what they say - at least that is how it looks from the outside) that criticism of your behavior is not, in fact, an ad hominem attack but an attempt to engage you in debate and have you modify that behavior. So, for the final time: remarks about personal characteristics only constitute ad hominem attacks ONLY when they are made for the purpose of invalidating other (typically, in this group, technical) arguments. If we met in person at a conference (God help us both) and you sat in an open space session picking your nose, would you deem it an "ad hominem attack" if I told you to stop? It sounds like it, even though I would tell you to stop not so that others would respect your technical arguments any less, but because by departing from the accepted standards of behavior you would offend others. > >> In your terms, your accusing me of bullying behavior is an ad hominem >> attack on me, so I won't bother to respond further. > > You're complaining about the person you're hitting saying clearly what > you did. > > If some truthful words about bullying can get you straight I'm for it. > > Even if it means getting down to your level (and yes, I did). > Nope, I'm not complaining at all. That's your tactic: "look, Steve is hitting me". You are entitled to write what you like on this newsgroup, but you have to accept that it will have consequences. I am simply pointing out that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
From: Steve Holden on 11 Feb 2010 10:59 Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > * Steven D'Aprano: [...] >> accusing them of lying for having an opinion that differs from yours, > > That is untrue. > Well, that says it all really. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 11 Feb 2010 14:55 * Steve Holden: > Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> * Steven D'Aprano: > [...] >>> accusing them of lying for having an opinion that differs from yours, >> That is untrue. >> > Well, that says it all really. You seem to insinuate that I'm saying that Steven is lying, and/or that Steven is lying. From context and your earlier similar behavior, I presume the former only. Anyway that's a *very* dirty insinuation. And ... It seems you *do not understand* the difference between an incorrect statement and a lie. Which is very telling, I'm sorry. And you have yet again concentrated on a personal attack via insinuation etc., diversion, which also is very telling, sorry. Cheers, - Alf
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 11 Feb 2010 15:16 * Steve Holden: > Alf P. Steinbach wrote: >> * Steve Holden: > [...] >>> In this particular part of the thread I am attempting, unsuccessfully, >>> to convince you that a change in *your* behavior would lead to less >>> hostility directed towards the way you present your ideas. >>> >>> You apparently feel it is quite acceptable to tell people to "learn to >>> read", >> I have not used that expression. >> >> However I have suggest and emphasized that it might help to *read* >> whatever one quotes, when the quoted material (such as one paragraph) >> has not been read. >> >> Telling someone to "learn to read" is a Steve Holden'sk way to imply >> that the person is an ignoramus who hasn't bothered to learn to read. >> Telling a person to read something that's obviously not been read is >> quite another matter. So, you are misrepresenting -- again -- and in >> a quite revealing way, sorry. >> > Pardon me? You used it on December 16 in a response to Mensanator in > message <hgbri8$e17$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> > > M :> How about devoting a section on downloading the source files > M :> and compiling it on a Mac? > > AS:> Learn to read. > > AS:> At the top of every second page it tells you that this is an > AS:> introduction based on Windows. > > I am sure you will have some glib response as to why this wasn't rude at > all. Allow me to correct you - it was, and rudeness is not welcomed on > comp.lang.python. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen (why, I have even > been known to be rude myself - we are none of us perfect, after all). > > I have already given ample evidence that when I am wrong I will admit > it. You, contrariwise, maintain that you will admit when you are wrong > (I believe 40% of the time was the figure you used) No, 40% of contested cases. But that was sort of a white lie. I'm not that often wrong, and anyway it doesn't apply to me in [comp.lang.python] so far. It only applies to groups where only things that might be incorrect are challenged. > but I fail to > remember any single incident when you made such an admission. Your memory seems to be very very bad, since I've stated I've been wrong also in direct debates with you. But one person who /does/ have severe trouble admitting that he's wrong, going to the extreme of ad hominem attacks and using terms such as "wring" to avoid saying it (it's quite amazing, almost unbelievable) is Steve Holden. Anyway, I was wrong about not having used that phrase "learn to read". I'm not sure if I ever apologized directly to Mensanator for that, and now it's history, but what I do know I did was to follow up on that comment of his, making changes, and to acknowledge him for that in the [ack.txt] listing. Any reader might draw conclusions from that, e.g. what I positively did or what I possibly forgot to do -- we're not perfect beings any of us. [Steve Holden rambling with personal characterizations & circular logic snipped] Cheers & hth., - Alf
From: Terry Reedy on 11 Feb 2010 17:11
On 2/11/2010 1:37 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > Consider just the > assert( t is not s ) > t = s > > Does this change anything at all in the computer's memory? By 'computer', do you mean 'anything that computes' (including humans) or specifically 'electronic computer'? > But since it does have an effect, a memory change has been effected. Agreed, in whatever 'memory' the 'computer' is using. > You describe that memory change as that t has been "bound" to the same > object as s. I prefer to use the word 'associated': namespaces are a many-to-one association between names and objects. > By which you mean that henceforth, until the next assignment to t, t > *refers* to the same object as s. T and s are both associated with the same object. > That explanation in terms of "refers" is necessary. I disagree > No beginner knows what it means that a name is "bound" to something means, until it's been > explained. I agree, which is why I am trying to avoid 'bound', etc, in favor of 'associated'. One problem of 'bind' is that it sometimes raises the question of which is bound to which. 'Associated' avoids that. > The explanation is necessarily in terms of "refers to". I have given an alternative, even if you still prefer yours. > When something A refers to something B, then by definition A is a > *reference* to B. I presume you agree that the name 'Alf P. Steinbach' refers to you. Do you then consider it to be a 'reference' to you? In either case, the Python definition uses 'refers to' in the same way that names refer to people, and did even before names were used in electro-mechanical computer programming. >Steven D'Aprano: >> My version describes what happens at the level of high-level Python >> code, which is the defined semantics of the language. It makes no >> assumptions about the implementation, completely unlike yours which is >> entirely implementation- >> specific. My description is equally valid whether Python is being >> executed by the CPython virtual machine on an Intel-compatible >> processor, or hand-simulated with pencil and paper, or something >> completely different. Yours is not. About 13 years ago, I noticed that electronically executable Python was very similar to some of the designed-for-human-reading algoritm languages (pseudocode) that were not. I then coined the oxymoron 'executable pseudocode' for Python. I see the difference between the descriptions as reflecting the difference between Python, the executable algorithm language and Python, the machine programming language. >> I describe the high-level language, you describe one implementation. >> Neither view is *wrong*, per se, but one describes the semantics of >> the language while the other describes the implementation. I think anyone writing books using Python should at least understand the abstract view even if he prefers to write from the more concrete view. Terry Jan Reedy |