The big shots

[castironpi]

I've no idea what "it" refers to in the sentence above.


To me, that appears to be a completely random homile, appropos
of nothing.  Even as a homily, it doesn't really make any
sense.



I've no idea what your point is.  I guess you're trying to
explain why your posts appear to be semi-random nonsense?


Perhaps you need somebody who's fluent in English to help you
proofread your posts?  Or help you tune the Eliza program
you're using to generate them?

What is a a homile? 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.

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

It.

 

[castironpi]

OH YEAH.  Color me absent-minded.  File under "No, they're not
compiled."

On the other hand, a number of modules are not available on all
platforms.  'extcode' is merely not available on all machines.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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?

 

[George Sakkis]

I've no idea what your point is. I guess you're trying to
explain why your posts appear to be semi-random nonsense?

Reminds me of a reply I read in a forum once: "It sounds like English;
it even looks like English, but I can't understand a word you're
blabbering."

Perhaps you need somebody who's fluent in English to help you
proofread your posts? Or help you tune the Eliza program
you're using to generate them?

Grant, thanks for the laugh.. this was hilarious

George

 

[bruno.desthuilliers]

Ok, take this one. C is faster than Python.

C and Python are *languages* - that is, a grammar and a syntax. I fail
to see how a qualificative like "fast" can apply to a grammar+syntax.

Did you mean that "the same program written in C and compiled to
native code is faster than when written in Python and executed using
the CPython runtime" ?

It would be useful, in
certain cases, to write C.

Possibly, but this has nothing to do with Python.

It is possible but inconvenient, out of the way.

What is inconvenient ? Writing C code ? Compiling it ? Distributing
the compiled executable or library ?

Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: C function in a Python contexthttp://groups.google.com/group/comp..lang.python/browse_frm/thread/cd2...

OMG ! LordHaveMercy(tm).

My suspicion is that my choices of message subjects, function names,
and variable names, is the biggest hang up.

My suspicion is that you should read the whole DailyWTF archives - for
educational purpose.

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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
including in the python standard lib. It is not.

There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly
rules of thumb that are being considered:

- is it useful for *a lot of people*

- will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of
the standard distribution

- does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very*
carful considered.

- is the design well-thought and mature

- does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the
new lib


And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job
doing so is certainly *not* helping.

Diez

 

[Carsten Haese]

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 library. I am the maintainer if a third-party
extension module that has approximately hundreds of users, and I would
never dream of trying to get it included in the standard library.

I expressed my opinion that 'ext' is an insane idea. I wouldn't use it,
but that shouldn't stop you from using it. Neither should my opinion
stop you from trying to sell 'ext'. If it's really as good as you think
it is, you'll be rich in no time.

Good luck,

 

[castironpi]

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
including in the python standard lib. It is not.

There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly
rules of thumb that are being considered:

  - is it useful for *a lot of people*

  - will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of
    the standard distribution

  - does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very*
    carful considered.

  - is the design well-thought and mature

  - does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the
    new lib

And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job
doing so is certainly *not* helping.

Diez

I don't know quite how to handle your reply. Counterexamples are
already in. Shall I add this to the list:

- is someone's favorite?

while True:
"I like it."
"I don't."
"But I have check-in priveleges on the SVN trunk."

I do not insult anyone. I ask: What if he, she, or they, those who
have those priveleges, dislike a good thing?

You all know the allegory of the Apes and the Fire Hose. But 'ext' is
actually good.

Do you have these:

- It would not get used by anyone
- It is not useful to very many people
- There is some concern it could not remain maintainable
- It is neither well-thought out nor mature
- It will not ever make sense to tie it in to the Python cycle

?

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 exists per se
- It is to the rest of the language as wires #3, #4, and #5 are to RCA
cables
- HTML 4.01 is not an improvement over HTML 4.0

?

If still not, how about these:

- It hurts my feelings
- It foils my revenge
- I'd rather you toil meanially
- Tedious is good
- You shouldn't have power
- But I'm greedy
- We can't afford it

?

 

[Gabriel Genellina]

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 the Python Package Index: http://pypi.python.org/pypi
Post a notice in the announcement list.
Wait for user feedback. Listen. Improve it. Make it so good that everyone
would love to have it always available. Commit yourself to maintain the
module forever. Suggest inclusion in the stdlib.

 

[Grant Edwards]

What is a a homile?

It's a misspelling of homily.

 

[Sergio Correia]

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)

 

[Marco Mariani]

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.

 

[Dotan Cohen]

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 mailing list. We are here to discuss Python, not
social problems and their solutions.

It.

It what?!?

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
×-ב-×’-ד-×”-ו-×–-×—-ט-×™-ך-×›-ל-×-מ-ן-× -ס-×¢-×£-פ-×¥-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

 

[Dotan Cohen]

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.pl?sid=07/12/09/1356201>

You've probably right!

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
×-ב-×’-ד-×”-ו-×–-×—-ט-×™-ך-×›-ל-×-מ-ן-× -ס-×¢-×£-פ-×¥-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

 

[Grant Edwards]

I think it's a sort of Turing test,

You're probably right, and I think I failed the test.

 

[Preston Landers]

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 exists per se
- It is to the rest of the language as wires #3, #4, and #5 are to RCA
cables
- HTML 4.01 is not an improvement over HTML 4.0

?

If still not, how about these:

- It hurts my feelings
- It foils my revenge
- I'd rather you toil meanially
- Tedious is good
- You shouldn't have power
- But I'm greedy
- We can't afford it

?

I think your tin foil hat may screwed on a wee bit tight.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

In Hebrew, we have 8 different words for "you". That does not affect
my English communications, however.

Also, let's not forget that the English language has "one" as an
impersonal pronoun.

/W
(BTW: Don't feed the bot. )

 

[Kay Schluehr]

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 like the quite
familiar Guido-doesn't-give-Python-newbies-enough-freedom-to-change-
the-language father complex.

 

[castironpi]

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 the Python Package Index:http://pypi.python.org/pypi
Post a notice in the announcement list.
Wait for user feedback. Listen. Improve it. Make it so good that everyone  
would love to have it always available. Commit yourself to maintain the  
module forever. Suggest inclusion in the stdlib.

I don't know what "everyone" "would love" to have "always available".
I'm baffled that anyone ever pretends to (know).

"No, but nobody likes it."
"What?"

If cl-py is not the right place for personal exchanges, then get
going.

I am seeking a rational, informed, constructive evaluation of the
merits and demerits of 'ext'.

It's also productive to characterize trends of things in the std.
lib., and I could even see that discussion arising from this one.
It's just up to us whether it's in the same thread or not.

 

[Chris Mellon]

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
including in the python standard lib. It is not.

There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly
rules of thumb that are being considered:

- is it useful for *a lot of people*

- will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of
the standard distribution

- does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very*
carful considered.

- is the design well-thought and mature

- does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the
new lib


And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job
doing so is certainly *not* helping.

And of course if ext was a good idea, we'd use Weave from scipy
instead, which exists and works.

 

[castironpi]

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 like the quite
familiar Guido-doesn't-give-Python-newbies-enough-freedom-to-change-
the-language father complex.

Now -that- makes sense. I'm asking him to change and do something
different. I can see how that would take a lot of patient
persuading. Clearly I don't know what it is that goes into other
proposals either. But why am I not getting the same responses that
new ideas from others get?

My writing isn't unclear, just watered-down, and perhaps takes a
tangent.

It's also pretty clear at a glance what the snippet in 'ext' does. If
everyone is asking what extensions and abstractions I want to make, I
may be in the minority in how open I am to contributions. As it
stands it's pretty good too.

If the concern is not merely what goes in, but what the authors do
with the status that grants, that's something that I can not say or
show you without consistency and establishing myself in a reliable
place; it's not that they want to keep every half-baked idea out of
the std. lib., it's that they want to keep the credit somewhat
unified, and who it goes to is important. I understand; just say so--
"no, not from you, until we meet you."

The unified-credit wish may not even be vicious, and actually be
rational, if the consequences come back on the language's reputation,
and that reputation extends outside and beyond of its de facto
merits. If there's a mystique and mystery surrounding it, that the
"big wigs" value, then that explains the "yes but who" reaction. But
other things might too, so I'm not pointing fingers. A=> B; A; |||
B. A?