while c = f.read(1)

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-08-25, Steve Holden schreef <steve at holdenweb.com>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-08-24, Magnus Lycka schreef <lycka at carmen.se>:
>> 
>>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think he did, because both expression are not equivallent
>>>>unless some implicite constraints make them so. Values where
>>>>both expressions differ are:
>>>>
>>>>  start1=67, stop1=9, start2=10, stop2=29
>
> This is just too fatuous to ignore, sorry.

You mean you can't think of circumstances where this
could be valid data.

>>>Ouch! That didn't occur to me. How sloppy to just assume that
>>>time periods can't end before they start.
>> 
>> 
>> I have no trouble that you assume a time period starts before
>> it ends.
>> 
>> But two pieces of code that only give the same result under
>> particular assumptions are not equivallent. For all I know
>> his code might work without this assumption and thus be
>> usefull in circumstances where yours is not.
>> 
>> Maybe someone uses a convention where time intervals that
>> stop before they start can have some meaning.
>> 
>> Equivallent code IMO always gives the same results, not
>> only under the particular constraints you are working with.
>> 
>> 
>>>I'll shut up now. You win,
>>>I'm obviously the idiot here, and Python's must be
>>>redesigned from ground up. Pyrdon maybe?
>> 
>> 
>> If I ever design a language it'll be called: 'Queny'
>> 
> ...and you will regard it as perfect

I doubt that. I've looked at the problem of designing a language
and IMO it is a very complex matter, that is difficult to do
good, let alone perfect. At this moment I think very highly
about the designers of Python, because I think they have
done a very good job and Python is for the moment my language
of choice. Sure Python has its warts, but I can live with
them. I just don't like it if I get the impression that
people want to deny the warts.

> and be completely unable to 
> understand why nobody likes it.
>
> Could we possibly reduce the number of arguments about ridiculous 
> postulates such as , and try to remember that most people on this list 
> are dealing with real life?

So? Real life is full of thinss that could be better. If people just
want deal with that, fine.  But arguing that there is nothing wrong
with how python treats conditional context is not dealing with
real life. AFAIAC writing articles in newsgroups isn't dealing
with real life, unless maybe if you have a question you need an
answer for. I deal plenty with real life myself, during working
hours that consists partly in writing python software, with all
the good and the few bad python brings.

> Magnus gave you a perfectly reasonable example of some code that could 
> be simplified. You say the two pieces of code aren't equivalent. While 
> you may be (strictly) correct, your assertion signally fails to add 
> enlightenment to the discussion.

No, my assertion pointed out, that his code would only work under
specific constraints. Constraints that may have been very natural
in the context the program was written, but that doesn't mean
all programs work with such a constraint. He was also talking
about logical equivallence and his expression was not logical
equivallent with the one that was replaced.

> I continue to look forward to the first post in which you actually 
> accept someone else's point of view without wriggling and squirming to 
> justify your increasingly tenuous attempts to justify every opinion 
> you've ever uttered on this group :-)

I don't post me too's. There have been plenty of posts here, I have no
problem with. I read them, give a slight nod and go on. And if I have
an opinion I was to express here, I certainly will to justify it.

-- 
Antoon Pardon