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

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +0000, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
> 
> Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it 
> a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of 
> good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

Why can't you? I think you should give Rurpy more credit. If you want
this to make a welcoming community, then you should take such remarks
seriously. You should realise that you are not in a good position to
evaluate how your words come accross because you rely on the knowledge
of your intentions. Others who don't know your intentions can reasonably
get a very different understanding of what you intended.

> I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate the 
> subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments about the 
> precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in good faith, 
> they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens of posts.

So it seems you want this to be a welcoming community, as long as we don't
propose you to change your own behaviour. As soon as it is suggested you may
have to adapt your own behaviour in order to make this a welcoming community,
threads where this sort of things are discusseed in, no longer appeal to
you?