[Edu-sig] re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output

[Tim Peters]

[Tim]
> In all the conversations I've ever had with him on the topic, neither
> Sherwood nor Pausch came up.  Arthur, you've been told that more
> times than I can keep track of, but you still bring them up endlessly.

[Athur]
> Is it important to make me seem more irrational and arbritrary than I
> already do?
>
> "Arthur, you've been told...."
>
> Unacceptable wording, and unacceptable implications.

You've been told that by me more times than I can keep track of:  that was
about us.  I said nothing in that msg I haven't told you before, including
two more attempts at explaining what the division issue is really about (one
quoted from Kirby, in case you hadn't seen it, and another rewording from
me).  You wholly snipped the parts of the msg that addressed the base
question, retaining the tiny mention of Sherwood & Pausch(!).  What's up
with that?  You should broaden your interests beyond them <wink>.

> I *don't* have private conversations with Guido and am perfectly well
> entitled to respond to what is of record.

You should have noticed by now it's a monologue:  what S&P thought or think,
said or say, affirm or deny, is irrelevant to Python's plans.  You've been
told the real reasons for the division change so often and by so many that
you do indeed appear irrational on this specific topic.