Python-URL! - weekly Python news and links (Nov 17)

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On Nov 17, 4:06 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar>
wrote:
> En Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:44:23 -0200, <rurpy at yahoo.com> escribió:
>> On Nov 17, 8:54 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <python-... at phaseit.net>
>> wrote:
>>>     Candidate to *Longest and Most Boring Thread of the Year* - started
>>>     more than a month ago, currently discussing "The official definition
>>>     of call-by-value", and "What't the value of an object":
>>>         http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/t/6163956596a8c082/
>>
>> Nice.  The Python Reference defines objects, the core concept
>> of Python, as id, type, and value, and then leaves one clueless
>> about what a value is, and several notable Python contributors
>> declare the subject boring.
>
>    The C99 language standard does not define what "memory" is, even if many
> parts on the language definition rely on how memory actually works. This
> has not prevented programmers from writing good C code.

Do you really want to compare the C standard to the
Python Reference in the context of document quality?
I haven't looked at it in years but my recollection
is that even 15 years ago it was orders of magnitude
more detailed and specific than the Python Reference.

Secondly, "memory", "computer", "electricity" are all
obviously outside the scope of a language definition.
The nature of a concept that is the central concept
in the language is equally obviously in scope.  I am
amazed at the lengths some people here will go to
defend problems in Python, even turning them into
virtues.   Why not just say, "yea, well it needs work
but <insert favorite apologetics here>"?

Thirdly, the question is not about, "*can* you use it?".
Obviously people make use of lots of software with much
worse docs that the Python Docs.  The questions is about
"is it complete and accurate?", and "can I get the
information I need to understand/use Python from it
effectively?"  (Those are not yes/no questions.)

>    Arithmetic (and algebra) was developed way before mathematicians could
> give a good definition of what a "number" really is.

That didn't stop them from at least trying.  And
there was Euclid's approach which was fairly rigorous
for the times.

> I don't feel anybody would improve their Python skills chasing what the
> "value" of an object is, least to make contortions so some arbitrary
> definition of "call by value" be applicable to the language.

And I feel you're wrong.  The reason I am interested
in the definition of an object stems from a very early
experience with Python.  Not fully getting what an
object was, I decided to write an "examine" function
to printout everything that could be found out about
an object.  I printed the id, then all the attributes.
But they all turned out to be objects so I examine()'d
them recursively (and quickly discovered the need for
a depth limit.)  Then I tried to print the 3rd aspect,
it's value, and ran smack into the issues you find so
boring.

Also if you hadn't been so bored and had actually
read the most recent postings you would have
discovered I made absolutely no mention at all of
call-by-anything, let alone tried to contort anything.
I was *asking* what "value" meant in context of the
P.L.R. and floating some possible proto-definitions
based on what I learned.  Sheesh!

> It's a boring
> topic for *ME* and the above "Most Boring Thread" is just *MY* opinion; if
> you or anyone else enjoy the discussion or consider it important in some
> way, of course you're all free to continue as long as you wish.

Oh come on, that's pretty disingenuous.  The weekly
Python News is not exactly lil'ole Gabriel posting
an opinion to c.l.p.  But since it is your opinion,
I sure you won't mind me responding with mine.

>    BTW, I think some other thread got a few more than 300 posts, so this
> one -currently at 268- still has a chance to get the first prize as
> Longest Thread - but you'll have to write hard :)

I had no intention of writing anything else until
you responded.  Maybe we can do it together!!

>> I guess this goes a long way to explaining why the Python docs
>> suck so badly in many areas.
>
>    I don't think so, anyway, I guess the usual reply is "all contributions
> are welcome".

One of the reasons I would like to formulate a good
model of an object's value and type is so that I could
try to offer something better.  Responses like yours
are significantly demotivating.