On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:19 PM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 October 2016 at 15:32, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote:
> > Steven, please. You seemed to struggle to understand the notion of the
> > [*....] construct and many people (not just me) here tried their best to
> > explain their intuition to you.
> And yet, the fact that it's hard to explain your intuition to others
> (Steven is not the only one who's finding this hard to follow) surely
> implies that it's merely that - personal intuition - and not universal
> understanding.
I fail to see this implication. Perhaps you mean that the universal
understanding is hard to get, intuitively. And trying to explain them is
the way to figure out howw hard can this difficulty be overcome.

> The *whole point* here is that not everyone understands the proposed
> notation the way the proposers do, and it's *hard to explain* to those
> people. Blaming the people who don't understand does not support the
> position that this notation should be added to the language. Rather,
> it reinforces the idea that the new proposal is hard to teach (and
> consequently, it may be a bad idea for Python).
It may also suggest that there are currently two ways to understand the
*[...] construct, and only one of them can be generalized to lead the new
proposal. So people that are *used* to the other way may have harder time
than people coming with a clean slate. So it might or might not be hard to

(I'm not saying that's necessarily the case)

I will be happy to understand that "other way" that is harder to
generalize; I think this discussion may be fruitful in making these
different understandings explicit.

Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to