the global keyword:

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:14 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote:

> Op 19-06-16 om 23:20 schreef BartC:
>> On 19/06/2016 15:35, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> Op 12-06-16 om 23:10 schreef BartC:
>>>> On 12/06/2016 20:25, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>>>>   Just as here there is no link between x
>>>>> and y:
>>>>>
>>>>>     x = 12
>>>>>     y = x
>>>>
>>>> (And that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to
>>>> 'x', referring to the "...ducks limp" thread. But best not to rake
>>>> it up again...)
>>>>
>>> I find this rather inaccurate reference to what your opposition is
>>> supposed to have states together with the remark best not to rake
>>> this up again, rather disingenuous
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, haven't been able to parse that.
>>
>> What is inaccurate? What am I supposed to be opposed to? And why is it
>> disingenuous? The original thread is still open to posts AFAIK if
>> someone wants to discuss it further.
> 
> You are denying a position above. So you oppose the position being denied.
> However noone defended the position you denied. 

I'm sorry Antoon, Bart only paid for the ten minute argument.

Bart didn't say anyone had defended it. He made an observation:

"that's a good illustration of why 'y' isn't a name reference to 'x'"

which is factually correct. And this does refer to the "ducks limp" thread.
Nothing he said was wrong or objectionable, and he didn't imply that anyone
was taking the opposite position.


> So denying a position here 
> and thus suggesting there are people who defend that position is
> inaccurate.

There's no "and thus" here. Sometimes people make observations and share
them with the group. You'll notice that I'm taking a position here, but I'm
not accusing you or anyone else of taking the contrary position
(namely "nobody ever makes observations and shares them with the group").


> And it is disingenuous to inaccurately mention others people's position

Bart did not mention anyone's position, accurately or inaccurately.


> and then to try to screen yourself off from reactions by ending with:
> "Best not to rake it up again."


-- 
Steven