Caculate age

[Bengt Richter]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 09:54:38 +0100, Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com> wrote:

>
>Great to hear it.  Sorry for the confusion.
>
Is that a subtly humorous comment on my not being
specific enough, so that you might be wondering what
_I_ meant? ;-) I meant, did you really mean to imply
that integers or numbers are to be avoided altogether
as dictionary keys? Or were you taking the tack that
the finer points of integer vs float constants vs
computed float values etc. was better left totally
unmentioned in favor of just saying numbers don't
make great dictionary keys? I.e., newbies don't
need to know _why_ you say what you say? Or am I
totally off base? Or just that you don't type as
fast as Alex ;-)

You're not doing this ;-)
<rant apology="sorry">, but the evil twin of this
is the teaching of a false concept as a
kind of placeholder for the real truth, and doing it
without mentioning that it is wrong. Like saying
a chain hangs in the shape of a parabola. There's
nothing wrong in saying we'll just pretend, or
you'll learn later, but misleading someone so they
have to backtrack in their learning (or lose a bet
because they trusted the teacher), is execrable.
</rant>
Regards,
Bengt Richter