the global keyword:

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 20-06-16 om 14:15 schreef 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.

If you mean the literal logical implication you are correct. But there is
of course also the implicature. And his ending with "Best not to rake this
up again" is a strong indication he was aware of the implicature.

Because why is there a need to mention that one thing is a good illustration
of something not being the case, unless people have been stating the opposite?
Why should he be raking things up, if he is not stating something that is
opposed by others?

-- 
Antoon.