[Python-ideas] Technical possibilities for a syntax [was: Reverse assignment operators ...]

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Matthias Bussoni writes:

 > Please be mindful when replying, even if some of the lurker know
 > who some of you are and can figure out that some of the reply to
 > this thread below this message are sarcastic, not all readers
 > can. Your messages can also be cited out of context.

Mikhail has long since gone past the point where further posts from
him deserve such consideration.  Replying to Paul Moore when
deprecating "sarcastic" replies is just bad manners; Paul is never
intentionally sarcastic that I can remember.

Mikhail V writes:

 > So I can do better if we imagine, just imagine, such a scenario:

I can imagine it, and immediately reject it for reasons already given
for precisely that scenario.  Evidently you have not understood the
answers that have been given already.

Please just stop.  You are trying to enforce your preferences on the
Python world, and that is just not going to happen because the Python
world has already demonstrated strong preference in the opposite
direction, starting at

 > 1.  += and friends are now not allowed for integers,
 > but all _add()_, _iadd()_ are still of course there,
 > it does not concern me.

Both I and David Mertz, among others, have addressed this point
directly.  It is not going to happen.  Of course I am not
authoritative; if 6 or 7 different posters does not convince you, feel
free to ask Guido directly.  But it is useless to continue here.  Your
questions have all already been answered in full.

Your preference has not been denied; it's simply impossible to satisfy
it and the preference of the great majority (David estimated 80%, sort
of humorously I think; I'm stodgy, I'll just say significantly more
than 50%) at the same time.  Your persistence given those responses is
rude, because you're simply ignoring the effort that others have taken
to address your posts.  Please stop both the repeat posting and the
failure to acknowledge the effort others have made -- words are not
enough, you must try harder to understand to show proper respect.

 > What semantics it will fundamentally break or so hard to implement?

This has been explained, in detail, in several ways, from at least two
points of view.  It is rude of you to continue asking.  Please stop,
reread the posts explaining this point, and ask about specific
statements you don't understand rather than whining that nobody seems
interested in doing things your way.

This is my last post on this matter, and my last reply to you until
your behavior indicates an interest in cooperating to solve problems,
rather than self-centered demands.


Sincerely yours,
Stephen Turnbull

-- 
Associate Professor            Department of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/     Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp                   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175                 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN