Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 10/31/2013 11:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>[...]
>> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
>> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
>> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had no business making such a
>> statement
> 
> I said nothing of the sort.

Steven, please stop.  Trying to treat you as as an intelligent
and intellectually honest person and consistently getting crap 
like this back is getting annoying.

Here is a synopsis of the post in question (quotes are direct 
quotes, not paraphrase) [*1]:
  Skybuck: "To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical."
  You: Ask if Skybuck has "ever done any programming at all?".
  You: Give example of python While loop with test at top
  You: Give example of loop with test at bottom: "inappropriate" and "ugly")
  You: Example of For loop with test at bottom: "silly"
  You: Example of Until loop with test at bottom: "makes sense"
  Skybuck: Example of loop with test at bottom.
  You: Similar While loop with test at top: "better"
  You: Similar Until loop with test at bottom: "I would use a while loop"
  Skybuck: "Putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense."
  You: "Wait until you actually start programming before deciding
   what makes sense or doesn't."

I paraphrased that dialog as "you disagreed with him that 
'putting this exit condition on the top makes no sense' and 
claimed he had no business making such a statement". 

Instead of endlessly repeating your misrepresentation charges
along with exaggerations like "nothing of the sort", why don't 
you for once actually say how my paraphrase differs materially
in meaning from what was said?  How would you paraphrase it?

And, how does what you said disprove my primary point: that you 
stated as fact he had no programming experience when such a 
statement was your speculation, not fact, and thus likely to 
raise someone's hackles? 

> Good lord Rurpy, I've already called you out once for misrepresenting 
> what I've said, and here you are doing it again. You didn't have the good 
> graces to even say sorry, instead trying to weasel out of an apology with 
> a feeble "acknowledge[ment] that I overstated your position", and here 
> you are again digging yourself deeper into the hole. That's three posts 
> in a row -- your original post where you characterised me as making an 
> "attack" on Skybuck, the second post where you escalated by attributing 
> words I never wrote to me, and now this one where yet again you continue 
> to misrepresent my post despite being called out on it.

Steven, in every one of those posts I explained and justified
my statements.  You don't even have the decency to address
those points -- instead you simply snip them out and repeat 
your same accusations over and over as though by repeating 
them enough times they will magically become true.

You may think you are being clever (or perhaps it is out of
desperation to avoid admitting that your response to Skybuck
was, as I demonstrated, an unjustified ad hominem attack) but 
your twisting and squirming to avoid acknowledging my points 
is painfully transparent. 

> [...]
>> I am saying that your claim
>> that he has no programming experience is not supported by what he wrote
> 
> I did not claim Skybuck had "no business" (your words) making such a 
> statement about loop conditions. Far from it, I treated his opinion as a 
> serious one worthy of discussion, discussing situations that both support 
> and contradict his idea.

His idea was that loop tests should always or usually be 
done at the end of the loop.  You discussed *nothing* that 
supported that idea.  You contradicted it by showing a 
number of examples where you claimed testing at the top 
was better.

> I *asked him* if he had programming experience, with an explicit 
> question, and even began the question with the sort of social lubricant 
> that acknowledges that the question is a touchy one ("please excuse my 
> question"). I suggested that *it seems* that he doesn't have such 
> experience. The normal, good-faith implication of this is that I am 
> stating an opinion of how it seems to me, not an absolute fact.

You seem to have a very selective memory.  I quoted your 
concluding sentence, which you conveniently leave out 
above, previously in this message.  You did not "suggest" 
when you said "Wait until you start programming...".  Nor 
is that an expression of opinion.

If you can't even tell when you're misrespresenting your 
own words, how do you expect to be able to tell when someone 
else does?

Why don't you just own up to what you wrote?

> The whole 
> exercise was to engage Skybuck in conversation, give him a chance to 
> demonstrate (or at least assert) that I was mistaken about his lack of 
> experience, and defend or amend his claim that putting the loop condition 
> at the beginning of the loop makes no sense.

Then perhaps you should not have ended your exercise by 
telling him he had no programming experience (directly 
contradicting his earlier statement that he did.)

> Unless you are prepared to discuss this in good faith, instead of 
> continuing to misrepresent what I say, I am done discussing this with you.

Good faith?  Is that is supposed to be a joke?

Yes, please.  I have wasted enough time trying to respond
calmly, logically and honestly to your sleazy, and amusing
to no one but your fans, rhetorical gymnastics.  If you can't 
write with any kind of honesty or integrity, please do stop.

One last serious comment, take it or leave it:
On the off chance you actually do believe you said nothing
to Skybuck that he should be offended by, you might want 
to consider that perhaps your perceptions of how you think 
others should react to your words are not the same way as 
others actually do.

----
[*1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/p1E0d1UGeY8/-yNyjkagJ-MJ