"Python Redesign" (fwd)

[Terry Reedy]

"Aahz" <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote in message
news:bjif13$ou8$1 at panix3.panix.com...
> In article <TsmdnYgCScjFEsGiU-KYgw at comcast.com>,
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> >What we were directed to was *not* a mockup (model), but an image
of a
> >mockup.  That mislabeling was a source of misunderstanding which
> >generated part of the criticism.  Please let us keep the useful
> >distinction between a thing and an image of the thing.
>
> And I'll repeat that in addition to Peter's valid point about
differing
> definitions of mockups, Tim was not the person who pointed "us" at
it.

So what?  I neither said nor implied so.  The identity of the original
pointer is irrelevant to the point I made.  And so is repetition of a
correction of an error I did not make.

In any case, Parkin also used (and today defended) the word himself in
his subsequent posts.  Leaving dictionaries aside, the use of the
disputable word 'mockup' instead of the accurate word 'image' lead to
unfulfilled expectations and criticisms based thereon.  Indeed, Parkin
himself deflected such criticisms several times by saying 'its just an
image' [and not the html mockup some thought it was].

Do you really think inexact words that lead to misunderstanding are as
useful as exact words that do not?  Do you really think the
distinction between object and image is useless?  These are the
questions I raised and gave my answer to.

Terry J. Reedy