python adds an extra half space when reading from a string or list

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 06-07-13 00:40, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
> On 07/04/2013 06:09 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 03-07-13 19:11, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>>> On 07/03/2013 03:21 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>> Op 03-07-13 02:30, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>>>>> If your going to point out something negative about someone
>>>>> then do so politely.  Ask yourself if you were pointing out 
>>>>> incompetence to your boss (or anyone else where impoliteness
>>>>> could have real consequences for you) if you would say, 
>>>>> "you're incompetent." 
>>>> And so we shift from no problem speaking bluntly or clearly
>>>> to wording it in a way that wouldn't antagonize your boss
>>>> too much.
>>> As I pointed out, emotionally-loaded, judgmental language 
>>> *is not* clear.
>> Well that is true, but mostly in the trivial sense that
>> language is rarely clear even when you are talking facts.
> Its true in more than a trivial sense.
>
>> When I meet someone new and I talk about my love of spaghetti
>> and the other inivites me to the spaghetti evening the next
>> day, that can turn out to be a big disappointment because
>> when I talk about spaghetti, I mean a carbonarra while I
>> was invited to a bolognaise-evening.
> Of course there is some degree of uncertainty.  But that
> uncertainty is relatively small when compared with the
> range of possible food you might have been served had 
> your evening's companion not specified "spaghetti".
>
> Had he or she invited you to a really "delicious" meal
> on the other hand, the uncertainty about the what 
> "delicious" means would far greater.  Unless you know 
> the person, "delicious" is so subjective as to have very
> little meaning since its meaning varies between people
> much more than "spaghetti" does.
That is not true. Subjective and unclear are not the
same. And that you don't know what kind of food someone
find delicious, doesn't make it unclear what kind of
expectations you (try to) evoke when you promisse him
a delicious meal.

When you go to someone's restaurant buddies and tell them
you want to cook him a delicious meal, do they have suggestions?
Then those buddies will find that question clear enough to
come up with useful answers. And I doubt that you can get
just as useful answers by asking about objective facts.


> Describing someone as "stupid", "incompetent", "a 
> dick", etc has a similar high degree of subjectivity
> and its meaning depends more on the sayer than on any 
> objective attribute of the subject.
I doubt that. Subjective is not the same as arbitrary.
We as humans react in large degree the same to the same
kind of stimuli. If someone tells me something tastes
sweet, then that tells me more about what he is tasting
than about him. Especially if more than one person reports
the same.


> If you can tell me something objective about the subject,
> then that may be helpful to me in deciding how to respond 
> to him or her.  If you just spout subjective invective, 
> then its just noise because I don't know enough about 
> you to trust your judgment.

And why should you trust my objective statement? The fact
that the statement is objective, doesn't mean I am qualified
in making it.


>   (Advanced technical python 
> knowledge does not qualify one in judging other human 
> beings.)  And since I'm reading the thread I have access 
> to the same info you do, and can form my own subjective
> opinion.  Judging other people is in my opinion a moral 
> action that is too important to delegate or to do by just
> going along with the crowd.

So nobody is stopping you AFAICS.

> So such subjective, emotionally-loaded, judgmental responses 
> provide little benefit to others, amplify whatever negative
> tone was created by the troll and stimulate the troll.  The
> only benefits are to you who gets to vent and argue, and a 
> (hopefully few) voyeurs and fellow vigilantes who enjoy 
> watching and joining in on that kind of flamage.

This is just your subjective emotional evaluation. By your
own words why should I trust you? Why should we see the benefits
to the vigilantes and the voyeurs as little? Why should we
see the tone that is created by the troll as negative? Why
should we hope that the voyeurs and vigilantes are few?

Doesn't this all just say more about you than about the trolls,
vigilantes and voyeurs? Why should I take your judgement over that
of those you call trolls, vigilantes and voyeurs? Why do you
use the words "troll", "vigilante" and "voyeur", which are
emotionnaly laden, instead of stating objective facts?


>> Are you saying we should either help the person with his
>> (python) problem or decline any help no matter how nefarious
>> the goals he wants to accomplish or are you saying these
>> examples are not serious enough so people should show some
>> tolerance in these cases?
> The former.

Then I strongly disagree. If at some point a pedophile would
come to this group to ask for advice for his python program
he's using to spy on the kids in the neighbourhood, then just
declining to help is IMO a kind of moral negligence. 


>>> You can summarize while being polite and non-judgmental.
>> Somethings are not expressable in a way that is acceptable
>> to who you are talking too, simply because they find the
>> fact or opinion to be hurtful/insulting in itself.
> And so?  That someone may be hurt or insulted by a polite
> reasoned response obviously does not mean that impolite
> emotional flamage is better.

It doesn't mean it is worse either. Sometimes impolite
emotional flammage gets the message intended better accross
than a polite reasoned response. Polite reasoned responses
are easier to ignore.

-- 
Antoon Pardon