static variables

[Mark Lawrence]

On 02/12/2015 13:41, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 02-12-15 om 14:11 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:09 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then you better should.
>>> If you use an argument when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't
>>> you are showing you don't really have an argument. You are just showing
>>> your preference and making it sound like an argument.
>> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
>
> So? That doesn't show that we are talking about a foolish consistency here.
>
> This pseudo kind of arguing happens a lot on this list. A lot of the times
> one just throws out some proverb as if it is at all clear that the proverb
> applies.
>
> Somebody points out an inconsistency and out comes the above proverb, without
> much arguments that this inconsisty has advantages over a more consistent
> approach.
>
>> Thank you for your feedback. If you ever decide to post here to make
>> constructive comments or to help others, instead of just flaunting your
>> imagined superiority and whinging and moaning about the rest of us, then
>> I'll start to take your arguments seriously too.
>
> Oh come of your high horse. If people use arguments in a selective way,
> I can point that out. If you selectively apply an argument so you ignore
> the counter arguments when it suits you, that is not a constructive comment
> either and you can expect people to point out when that first argument can
> be used against you in the same way.
>
> Then going on to complain about non constructive comments seems a bit
> disingenous.
>

Would the pair of you, Antoon and Steven, be kind enough to take your 
bickering offline, thanks.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence