On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 12:05:33PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> > With the usual disclaimer that I understand it will never be manditory
> > to use this syntax, nevertheless I can see it leading to the "foolish
> > consistency" quote from PEP 8.
>
> > "We have syntax to write shorter code, shorter code is better,
> > so if we want to be Pythonic we must design our functions to use
> > the same names for local variables as the functions we call."
>
> > -- hypothetical blog post, Stackoverflow answer,
> > opinionated tutorial, etc.
>
> > I don't think this is a pattern we want to encourage.
>
> Steve's "hypothetical blog post" is a pattern he doesn't like, and he
> said that it's not a pattern we want to encourage. And he proceeds to
> demolish this pattern, in the rest of his post.
>
> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
This is called Poisoning the Well.
You have carefully avoided explicitly accusing me of making a straw man
argument while nevertheless making a completely irrelevant mention of
it, associating me with the fallacy.
That is not part of an honest or open discussion.
Anders made a proposal for a change in syntax. I made a prediction of
the possible unwelcome consequences of that suggested syntax. In no way,
shape or form is that a straw man.
To give an analogy:
Politician A: "We ought to invade Iranistan, because reasons."
Politician B: "If we do that, it will cost a lot of money, people
will die, we'll bring chaos to the region leading to
more terrorism, we might not even accomplish our
aims, and our international reputation will be harmed."
Politician A: "That's a straw-man! I never argued for those bad
things. I just want to invade Iranistan."
Pointing out unwelcome consequences of a proposal is not a Straw Man.
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
