Newbie: finding the key/index of the min/max element

[James J. Besemer]

Andrew Dalke wrote:

> Perhaps like http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py ?
> (Go to python.org, follow link to FAQ.  Actually, there are two
> links to the FAQ on that page, the other being to
>  http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html )

Well, for starters, something is out of whack:

    Sorry, an error occurred
    Bad request type 'show?file=faq0r.096.htp'.
    Python home / Python FAQ Wizard 1.0.;3 / Feedback to GvR

Some pages work but a lot don't.  No pattern I can discern.

> I wouldn't say it's strictly off limits.

I was citing a hypothetical example, offered as a possible way to fullfil Alex'
"wish".

> I would say at least in the
> context of comp.lang.python that it's not considered impolite to respond
> simply with a link to the FAQ entry, with no other text.

Perfect.  I never suggested anything so rude as "RTFM".

> And "dealt with"
> sounds more harsh that I would like to be, and would like the group to be.

Ok you can NOT "deal with" them.

People seem to attach a negative connotation to what I say no matter how neutral
I try to be.  I appreciate that some of this is my own fault but I'll be glad
when you all can take my words at face value.

> Then why didn't you find the FAQ?  What can be done to make it more
> visible?  It's been around for at least 6 years that I can recall and
> the number 1 hit on Google for "python faq" is the static FAQ page at
>   http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html

I'm well aware of the Python FAQ and over the years have actually read most of
it, though I may not be up to speed on recent changes.  I may be new to this
list but I'm not new to Python, it's documentation and certainly not to
programming generally.

Perhaps I'm out of line but I was humbly and respectfully suggesting something a
little different.  I view the Python faq as something for all Python users, I am
guessing most of whom do not participate in the news group.  I was suggesting
something more specific just for list members.  It is common among internet news
groups to have a list faq.  Seems such a document would be a place for, as I
said, listing topics that were off limits, as Alex requested.  It would NOT
repeat all the bounty from the regular FAQ (though naturally it would point
there), just business specific to the list itself.  It's common for lists to
beat certain topics to death and this typically is not knowable by new members.

I understand now that you consider the python faq to BE the list faq.  It seems
to me that (a) the existing faq doesn't addresses some of the specific
complaints I've heard, (b) it doesn't address all the issues that have come up,
and most importantly (c) the fact that a question is answered in the faq doesn't
handle the case where people have legit disagreement with answer.

I could be mistaken but I seem to recall reading FAQs long ago about booleans
and another about the += operators.  There still is a faq why Python only has 2
scopes.  More importantly, the faq answers newbie questions but it does not
clearly guide discussion on this list.  If the group consensus here is "don't
compare python to Lisp" or "don't ever bring up ternary ops" (as some have said)
then it WOULD save time to list the topics as a taboo on a list-specific faq.
Meanwhile, this would strike me as NOT appropriate for the regular faq.

What you think?

> What I've noticed in at least some of your posts is the tendency to
> assert an authority which is false-to-fact.  One was your assertion
> on the direct lineage of Python from Lisp, and another is this assumption
> that not only do we not have a FAQ but that we don't know what it is --
> and that your view of the use of the FAQ is the same as others'.

Please let me respectfully disagree just a bit here.

First, as I explained above, I was not denying the existance of a FAQ but merely
suggesting there might be a valid purpose for a new, different one.

Second, let's briefly look at my original "false-to-fact" words where I maligned
Python's heritage.

JB Wrote:

> It seems that Python started out (as a Lisp derivative) with much less
> of an OO emphasis.  I expect len() has precedent dating back to the
> original language.

So first off, the whole statement was my humble OPINION ("seems") never intended
to be a statement of fact.  Furthermore, my error is in a parenthetical, not
part of the main point.  Within that, I slightly overstate Python's relationship
with Lisp.  Somebody immediately corrects me about the word "derivative" and I
admit my error, all civil and friendly, like.  It was just a nit, a careless
choice of a word in an aside.  It's not as if the languages don't have a lot in
common.

I really feel unfairly maligned on this point (not specifically by you).

> There appears to be some antagonism in responses to your recent posts.
> I submit that at least part of it comes from this tendency.

It seems really inconsistent that on a list that ostensibly is supposed to be so
supportive to newcomers that I would get blasted so for such relatively minor
errors (or things that are not errors at all).

Please correct any errors or misconceptions I may have expressed in any of the
above.

Regards

--jb

--
James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com