On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:59:32 am Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > We don't need to make excuses for why we don't give the answer
> > here. It's enough to give the reason -- it's off-topic for this
> > list, which is about the development of Python. That and a pointer
> > to the right
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> We don't need to make excuses for why we don't give the answer here.
> It's enough to give the reason -- it's off-topic for this list, which
> is about the development of Python. That and a pointer to the right
> list is, in my opinion, all we need to say. We don't need
On 22/07/2010 23:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/22/2010 8:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:02:33 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
OTOH I think as quick as possible an answer is a good idea here. It
saves the intended audience the thought about whether to reply or
not, and an inst
On 7/22/2010 8:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:02:33 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
OTOH I think as quick as possible an answer is a good idea here. It
saves the intended audience the thought about whether to reply or
not, and an instant, constructive answer says that someb
On 7/22/2010 3:29 PM, average wrote:
Speacking of etiquette, it is traditional to use real names in the from
field on pydev. It will get you more attention and respect.
A reference or link to ESR's "How to Ask Questions The Smart Way"
(http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html) is a prett
> > > ...After a sufficient period of waiting, say a day or two with no
> response:
> >
> > Ok, I'll wait a bit longer.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea.
My bad, I really only meant a "sufficient delay to allow the
possibility of an interested party replying". I actually figured
about
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:02:33 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> OTOH I think as quick as possible an answer is a good idea here. It
> saves the intended audience the thought about whether to reply or
> not, and an instant, constructive answer says that somebody cares.
+1
I think that waiting "a d
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:02:33PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Oleg Broytman writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:28:24PM -0600, average wrote:
> > > As to your question of how best to handle inquiries from the blue or
> > > "noisy questions", I personally prefer the following (only sl
Oleg Broytman writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:28:24PM -0600, average wrote:
> > As to your question of how best to handle inquiries from the blue or
> > "noisy questions", I personally prefer the following (only slightly
> > tongue-in-cheek):
> >
> > ...After a sufficient period of wait
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:28:24PM -0600, average wrote:
> As to your question of how best to handle inquiries from the blue or
> "noisy questions", I personally prefer the following (only slightly
> tongue-in-cheek):
>
> ...After a sufficient period of waiting, say a day or two with no response:
On 21/07/10 23:43, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
IIUC, he wanted to know how Python
handles SIGKILL, when the hole point of SIGKILL is that you cannot
handle it.
No, I think he wanted to know how Python disallows
attempting to set a handler for SIGKILL, when he
couldn't find any code that special-ca
>> 1. I suggested one improvement to the canned response in my previous
>> post: expand 'using' to 'using or understanding'.
>
> I changed wording to "if you're having problems learning, understanding
> or using Python"
I think it's critical to disambiguate between questions about "using
and pro
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:43 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Unfortunately (?) the question also revealed a lack of understanding
> of a fairly basic concept. IIUC, he wanted to know how Python
> handles SIGKILL, when the hole point of SIGKILL is that you cannot
> handle it. So he shouldn't have be
No, the reply is fine as far as it goes, and I am sure the poster did
get a reply from c.l.py, but his question revealed a thirst for
knowledge not usually evidenced in non-dev inquiries.
Unfortunately (?) the question also revealed a lack of understanding
of a fairly basic concept. IIUC, he wan
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:51:07PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/20/2010 6:59 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
> 1. I suggested one improvement to the canned response in my previous
> post: expand 'using' to 'using or understanding'.
I changed wording to "if you're having problems learning, unders
On 7/20/2010 6:59 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
I know, the task of sending answers like I've sent is quite
unappreciated.
*I* appreciate it. I mostly do not respond to such because I expect you
or Aahz will.
I know, the meaning of my answer is rude because, in short,
it's simply "Please, g
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
..
> I know, the task of sending answers like I've sent is quite
> unappreciated. I know, the meaning of my answer is rude because, in short,
> it's simply "Please, go away", and however I stress the "please" part it's
> still "go away". If I
On 7/20/2010 11:59 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:08:00PM -0600, average wrote:
>> Wha? How could this not be the right place? He's not asking about
>> USING python, but asking: WHERE in the PYTHON CODE BASE does the
>> signal get checked?
>>
>> A-bit-miffed-at-the-cold-sho
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:08:00PM -0600, average wrote:
> Wha? How could this not be the right place? He's not asking about
> USING python, but asking: WHERE in the PYTHON CODE BASE does the
> signal get checked?
>
> A-bit-miffed-at-the-cold-shoulderly yours,
>
> Marcos (wink wink)
I know
19 matches
Mail list logo
