On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-03-03, mk <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established, why >>> no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking. >> >> Probably nothing: what many people do with confronted with a problem. >> >> It reminds me of why Windows uses backslashes for path separation >> instead of slashes: what I've *heard*, and do not know if it's true, >> it's because Gates fancied using / for options switch instead of -, >> and to hell with established practice. > > Using / for the option switch _was_ the established practice (if you > came from a DEC background the way that CP/M and DOS did). Quite true. And the early DEC systems predated Unix (although not by much) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Alf P. Steinbach
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... David Robinow
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... D'Arcy J.M. Cain
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Ed Keith
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... mk
- DOS Follies (Was: Docstrings..... D'Arcy J.M. Cain
- Re: DOS Follies (Was: Docstrin... Edward A. Falk
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... David Robinow
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Ed Keith
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Grant Edwards
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... David Robinow
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... MRAB
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Grant Edwards
- Re: Docstrings considered too ... Gregory Ewing
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated Grant Edwards
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated Roy Smith
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated Jean-Michel Pichavant
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated mk
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated John Bokma
- Re: Docstrings considered too complicated Steven D'Aprano