The big shots

[Steve Holden]

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.

'Scuse me, but you aren't able to make that judgment. Writing is
communication, so the reader has just as much to say about its quality
as you (more, in fact, since there are many readers and only one writer).

For what it's worth, much of your output seems to suffer from
attention-deficit syndrome, rendering you incapable of expressing a
single train of thought to its logical conclusion.

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.

A classic example. You say you "may be in the minority in how open [you
are] to contributions" but you don't say whether that makes you open or
closed. You assume a shared opinion without justification. This is one
of the things that makes your writing such hard going.

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."

I don't think it has much to do with *who* the ideas come from. It's
just that the ideas need to be fully-baked, and they need to be
presented in a cohesive manner. A long track-record of prior
contributions will lessen the severity of the scrutiny, but I think you
are deluding yourself about the possibilities.

What makes you think you have the right to ask Guido to change? Python
is the language it is largely because of his skills as a language
designer. To presume to ask him to change the way he considers new ideas
is ... well, presumptuous. There's a process. Use it, if you think your
ideas merit it.

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?

See, there you go being weird again. Just when you almost had me
convinced you were capable of rational discussion. If you can't say what
you mean then dressing it up as propositional calculus isn't going to
make it any more convincing.

regards
Steve

 

[Ben Finney]

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 sense at all, because of unclear and incoherent
writing. On that basis, I dismiss them before trying to re-read them,
because I don't want to spend my time trying to find sense in them
that may not be there at all.

 

[Paul Rubin]

Please re-assess that statement

Really, it may not have been clear at first, but after a while,
things became clear.

 

[castironpi]

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 sense at all, because of unclear and incoherent
writing. On that basis, I dismiss them before trying to re-read them,
because I don't want to spend my time trying to find sense in them
that may not be there at all.

--
 \       "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I |
  `\    was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it."  -- |
_o__)                                                     Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney

How do I "bake" this idea? Steve Bethard has often asked, "When would
you use it?" and "What is a use case?" Is the hang up on this
specific idea the absence of possibilities of use? Does he just want
to see some fleshed out? Is it easier to consider the abstraction in
a particular example? If the example isn't good, is the idea
rejected, or the example replaced? Is that the hang-up of this one?
Surely, there's a demand for performance, but what next?

I'll distill it.

import ext
ext.FuncA= """[string in C/C++]"""
ext.propogate()
dosomething( ext.FuncA() )

The style is wide open. Should each function you add be an object?

ext.FuncA= ext.Compile.C( """[string]""" )?

Should 'propogate' be called on initialization, or separately? I
intended the above to be a proof of concept; not only is it possible,
it's possible in Python "as is." Design the back end first, or the
interface? Having the proof of concept makes that question more
tangible and "grappleable", if that's a word. I don't even know if I
care who gets credit.

The idea is currently half baked. (Say that first next time,
right?!) Not finished.

Are further problems a) miscommunication or b) absence of content? If
Holden and Genellina don't follow, that's a strong sign that the
structure of my proposals is really bad, even if there's a good thing
behind it. You just have to solve (a) before you solve (b), which
makes devoting resources to (a) a little preliminary.

 

[Ben Finney]

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-read them, because I don't want to spend my time trying to find
sense in them that may not be there at all.

How do I "bake" this idea? [loads of further verbiage apparently
nothing to do with what Ben Finney wrote]

Here's another example of the above point. I've no idea what the
context is supposed to be of all the stuff you just wrote in your
message. It's also written in a fractured style that makes it very
difficult to follow. Hence, I tune out.

Are further problems a) miscommunication or b) absence of content?
If Holden and Genellina don't follow, that's a strong sign that the
structure of my proposals is really bad, even if there's a good
thing behind it. You just have to solve (a) before you solve (b),
which makes devoting resources to (a) a little preliminary.

Agreed. I'll wait until you have better results from improving
communication before I devote further resources to your messages.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

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 PLEASE stop replying to castironpi until he has something
sensible to say?

 

[castironpi]

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 PLEASE stop replying to castironpi until he has something
sensible to say?

I'll be the first. Joke.

I get the feeling you guys mostly respond like this:

"Yeah, yeah. It's a function that compiles C from within Python.
That's pretty cool, but I already know how to do it, and I do when I
need to. It doesn't encapsulate anything horrible, like urllib does,
or string handling or anything. In fact, the abstractions in Python.h
are pretty darn well encapsulated anyway, which means that your
proposal doesn't accomplish any major steps."

Well, how'd I do?

 

[Ricardo Aráoz]

You talk in analogies. I don't understand them. I do not know Spanish,
and maybe if I knew both Spanish and your local customs, I would
understand your analogies. But as a Hebrew-speaking middle easterner,
I don't.

I am a native Spanish speaker.... and I don't understand him either. It
is not cultural.