Re: Poor corporate communication culture - was Re: syntax oddities
On Sun, 20 May 2018 20:39:44 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote: > Nine times out of ten, a top posted reply from a manager is a sure sign > he hasn't bothered to read anything of what I actually wrote. Instead he > just answers the question he thought I asked. And the other one time out of ten, he's only read the first sentence. Only half kidding. -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Poor corporate communication culture - was Re: syntax oddities
On 05/18/2018 06:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > There are two completely independent cultures here. In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting > is common, conventional, and frankly, effective. I beg to differ with you. I find communication in corporate culture to be horrible and generally ineffective. Many times I've written an email and got a terse, top-posted reply that didn't address my question or point at all, requiring several emails to finally get the point across. If the other person had simply trimmed my post to quote my question, and then replied below it, he'd have got it right the first time, as he'd have to actually read what I wrote while doing this. I know I comprehend much better when I selectively quote. Nine times out of ten, a top posted reply from a manager is a sure sign he hasn't bothered to read anything of what I actually wrote. Instead he just answers the question he thought I asked. You must work for corporations that are pretty amazing compared to the average American one. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:55:52PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > You work someplace pretty unique. Everyplace I've worked has done the > whole top-posting and include the whole damn thread in reverse order > thing. It just doesn't work. The attached reverse-chronological > history doesn't seem to do _any_ good at all. AFAICT, nobody ever > reads it. Occasionally somebody will refer opaquely to something with > the phrase "see below" -- but there's never any indication to _what_ > among the fifteen messages and thirty attachements they are referring. In my experience, this "e-mail-that-contains-the-entire-conversation" is useful if and only if you happen to receive a forwarded copy so you know something you were not previously aware of. Otherwise, replies just accumulate past conversations because people are too lazy to bother. I wouldn't dare inline-replying in my current Outlook corporate environment. I just top-post, don't trim, go with the flow. Cheers, -- José María Mateos https://rinzewind.org/blog-es || https://rinzewind.org/blog-en -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:56:41AM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote: > Allow me to add an additional reason for trimming and responding > beneath each quoted section: it puts the response in the proper > context. And another one I learned recently on a similar conversation on another mailing list (that of the e-mail client I'm using right now): it is very useful for searches. Every e-mail contains just the right amount of text necessary to be properly read, as opposed to a more or less complete copy of the current thread. Cheers, -- José María Mateos https://rinzewind.org/blog-es || https://rinzewind.org/blog-en -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
Grant Edwards : > And most people seem to believe that if they read more that the first > two sentences of any e-mail it might trigger the apocolypse or give > their cat scabies or something else dreadful. I quickly glance at the hundred or so subject lines every morning and open the one or two that happen to catch my attention. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > If the thread forks, and someone is brought into one of the forks to > help with an issue brought up in THAT fork, then the context will > generally be sufficient for that. That assumes that they don't need any information that was posted in reply to something else. > Normally people WILL reply to the latest message in the chain (and in > fact Outlook will warn you if you are not doing that). The main reason > people don't reply to the most recent message is that several people > replied nearly simultaneously, and yes the other comments not in the > message people carry forward will get lost from the history. But for > that to happen you need multiple active participants in the conversation > which starts to strays away from the model. Considering that I've had situations with 3-4 active participants and replies-to-non-last-emails on our family mailing list - a list whose membership is literally just my parents and siblings (including one sister-in-law) - I would be astonished if it's a rare occurrence in corporate environments. Unless, of course, the norm is to snap off an email instantly, without bothering to actually put any thought into what's being said. Oh wait, it probably is... ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 5/18/18 10:38 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Richard Damon > wrote: >> I would divide the two communities/cultures differently. Top Posting is >> reasonable, effective and common in an environment where the primary >> recipients of the message can be assumed to have read, and likely >> remembered, the previous messages, and they are included mostly as a >> quick memory aid to remember WHICH conversation this message pertains >> with, or to a lessor extent, to help bring someone new to the >> conversation up to speed or if the message is pulled up out of an >> archive. Here the real focus is on the new content and the past record >> is mostly a 'foot note' (which is expected to be at the end). Since >> people tend to ignore the quoted material, if often ends up unedited and >> gets long (this actual is useful when someone new gets added to the >> email chain) > If people are generally going to ignore the quoted content, why have > it at all? Why not just post context-free messages that have a > reference to the rest of the conversation? Because, as I said, there are occational and lesser usages for the quoted material, it just isn't primary. It is a 'foot note' > > The ONLY way that the unedited quoted material is useful to someone > joining the email chain is if EVERY message is a response to the > single most recent message, and thus carries the entire conversation. > Otherwise, your email thread will branch and fork, and someone cc'd in > on a message will see only part of the thread, making it worse than > useless. The way you describe things, email is the wrong tool for the > job, and you should be using a message board of some sort. > > So, no, top posting still isn't "reasonable, effective, and common" in > any environment. It might be common, but that's all. > > ChrisA If the thread forks, and someone is brought into one of the forks to help with an issue brought up in THAT fork, then the context will generally be sufficient for that. Normally people WILL reply to the latest message in the chain (and in fact Outlook will warn you if you are not doing that). The main reason people don't reply to the most recent message is that several people replied nearly simultaneously, and yes the other comments not in the message people carry forward will get lost from the history. But for that to happen you need multiple active participants in the conversation which starts to strays away from the model. -- Richard Damon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 2018-05-18, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:25:52 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > >> In "Corporate" cultures like where I work (where IT and business >> functions interact a lot, and business users typically use tools >> like Outlook) top-posting is common, conventional, and frankly, >> effective. You work someplace pretty unique. Everyplace I've worked has done the whole top-posting and include the whole damn thread in reverse order thing. It just doesn't work. The attached reverse-chronological history doesn't seem to do _any_ good at all. AFAICT, nobody ever reads it. Occasionally somebody will refer opaquely to something with the phrase "see below" -- but there's never any indication to _what_ among the fifteen messages and thirty attachements they are referring. > I don't believe that email is effective in corporate culture *at all*, > regardless of posting convention. Email is for sending, not reading or > responding to. When people do respond to it, they invariably send some > stream of consciousness nonsense that doesn't answer the questions you > asked or give you enough instructions to actually get the job done that > they want you to do. And most people seem to believe that if they read more that the first two sentences of any e-mail it might trigger the apocolypse or give their cat scabies or something else dreadful. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I'm EMOTIONAL at now because I have gmail.comMERCHANDISING CLOUT!! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > I would divide the two communities/cultures differently. Top Posting is > reasonable, effective and common in an environment where the primary > recipients of the message can be assumed to have read, and likely > remembered, the previous messages, and they are included mostly as a > quick memory aid to remember WHICH conversation this message pertains > with, or to a lessor extent, to help bring someone new to the > conversation up to speed or if the message is pulled up out of an > archive. Here the real focus is on the new content and the past record > is mostly a 'foot note' (which is expected to be at the end). Since > people tend to ignore the quoted material, if often ends up unedited and > gets long (this actual is useful when someone new gets added to the > email chain) If people are generally going to ignore the quoted content, why have it at all? Why not just post context-free messages that have a reference to the rest of the conversation? The ONLY way that the unedited quoted material is useful to someone joining the email chain is if EVERY message is a response to the single most recent message, and thus carries the entire conversation. Otherwise, your email thread will branch and fork, and someone cc'd in on a message will see only part of the thread, making it worse than useless. The way you describe things, email is the wrong tool for the job, and you should be using a message board of some sort. So, no, top posting still isn't "reasonable, effective, and common" in any environment. It might be common, but that's all. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 5/18/18 8:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 18 May 2018 at 12:08, Rhodri James wrote: > There are two completely independent cultures here. In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting > is common, conventional, and frankly, effective. Conversely, in purely > technical communities like open source, where conventions originated > in low-bandwidth channels like early networks, interspersed posting, > heavy trimming and careful quoting are the norm. I've participated in > both communities for 30 years or more, and you deal with people in the > way that they find most comfortable. > > It's polite to follow the conventions of the community that you're > interacting with - so on this mailing list, for example, quoting and > posting inline is the norm and top-posting is considered impolite. > Arguing about how the community's conventions are wrong is also > impolite :-) I'm reminded of the old stereotypes of Brits speaking > English NICE AND LOUDLY to foreigners to help them understand what > we're saying... (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit, so I'm poking fun at myself > here :-)) > > Paul I would divide the two communities/cultures differently. Top Posting is reasonable, effective and common in an environment where the primary recipients of the message can be assumed to have read, and likely remembered, the previous messages, and they are included mostly as a quick memory aid to remember WHICH conversation this message pertains with, or to a lessor extent, to help bring someone new to the conversation up to speed or if the message is pulled up out of an archive. Here the real focus is on the new content and the past record is mostly a 'foot note' (which is expected to be at the end). Since people tend to ignore the quoted material, if often ends up unedited and gets long (this actual is useful when someone new gets added to the email chain) The second community has a wide audience, and it is expected that many people may come in at 'the middle' of a discussion, and thus the message with the history is likely to be read as a whole. It also can generally be assume that prior messages are available, thus less context is 'needed'. Here Interspersed/Bottom posting works better (Interspersed if responding point by point, Bottom if single point or responding to the message en-total.) Mailing list, Usenet, Forums and the like all tend to fall into the second category, but people more used to the more private type of conversations may have bad habits and not think about how it should transition to the different environment. -- Richard Damon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:25:52 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > In "Corporate" > cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a > lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting is > common, conventional, and frankly, effective. I don't believe that email is effective in corporate culture *at all*, regardless of posting convention. Email is for sending, not reading or responding to. When people do respond to it, they invariably send some stream of consciousness nonsense that doesn't answer the questions you asked or give you enough instructions to actually get the job done that they want you to do. Email in corporate culture is good for only one thing: after the seventeen pages of quoted text, and before the two page disclaimer telling you that legally you are in violation of a hundred and seventeen laws by merely walking past the building where the email was sent, the sender usually has their phone number so you can call them and ask them what they actually want done. *Usually*. -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 18/05/18 13:25, Paul Moore wrote: Arguing about how the community's conventions are wrong is also impolite:-) It's not an argument, it's a contradiction :-) I'm reminded of the old stereotypes of Brits speaking English NICE AND LOUDLY to foreigners to help them understand what we're saying... (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit, so I'm poking fun at myself here :-)) It's not actually the worst thing you could do. People speaking NICE AND LOUDLY also tend to speak more slowly and with better diction, both of which make life simpler for your poor old foreigner. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 18 May 2018 at 12:08, Rhodri James wrote: > On 17/05/18 23:44, Paul wrote: >> >> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group >> emails >> at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted >> on, bottom posting. > > I've been using email for thirty years, etc, etc, and I've always insisted > on proper quoting, trimming and interspersed posting. Clearly you've never > worked in the right companies ;-) There are two completely independent cultures here. In "Corporate" cultures like where I work (where IT and business functions interact a lot, and business users typically use tools like Outlook) top-posting is common, conventional, and frankly, effective. Conversely, in purely technical communities like open source, where conventions originated in low-bandwidth channels like early networks, interspersed posting, heavy trimming and careful quoting are the norm. I've participated in both communities for 30 years or more, and you deal with people in the way that they find most comfortable. It's polite to follow the conventions of the community that you're interacting with - so on this mailing list, for example, quoting and posting inline is the norm and top-posting is considered impolite. Arguing about how the community's conventions are wrong is also impolite :-) I'm reminded of the old stereotypes of Brits speaking English NICE AND LOUDLY to foreigners to help them understand what we're saying... (Disclaimer: I'm a Brit, so I'm poking fun at myself here :-)) Paul -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
bartc writes: > On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: > >>> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails >>> at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted >>> on, bottom posting. If someone's late to a thread they can read from it >>> the bottom up. >> >> Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? > > Is this a trick question? It's usually written left to right. in a rather biased way "front to back" -- turning pages to the left. an English book is read left to right, top to bottom and what we call two" because in printed text, pages also ordered need to be order. Thus we read English text left to right and top to bottom. I say "at least bottom. The slightly sarcastic question was supposed remind people that lines left to right, lines are stacked, almost always from top to There are at least two directions for most text. After constructing -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM, bartc wrote: > On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: > > >>> I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group >>> emails >>> at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted >>> on, bottom posting. If someone's late to a thread they can read from it >>> the bottom up. >> >> >> Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? > > > Is this a trick question? It's usually written left to right. And the lines are written top to bottom. Not bottom to top. Why should people have to read sections from the bottom up, but text within the section from the top down? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 17/05/2018 23:49, Chris Angelico wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted on, bottom posting. If someone's late to a thread they can read from it the bottom up. Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? Is this a trick question? It's usually written left to right. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 17/05/18 23:44, Paul wrote: I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted on, bottom posting. I've been using email for thirty years, etc, etc, and I've always insisted on proper quoting, trimming and interspersed posting. Clearly you've never worked in the right companies ;-) -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
Chris Angelico writes: > Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? This applies to italian as well, accordingly to one my signatures, that roughly corresponds to the following: Because it is contrary to the normal sense of reading > What's wrong with top-posting? >> The answers that precede the questions >>> What's the most boring thing in e-mails? :-) ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Perché è contrario al normale senso di lettura real: Emanuele Gaifas | > Cosa c'è di male nel rispondere in cima? l...@metapensiero.it | >> Le risposte che precedono le domande | >>> Qual'è la cosa più noiosa nelle e-mail? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, 18 May 2018 08:38:31 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber > wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:18:32 -0700, Tobiah declaimed >> the following: >> >>>Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through a thread in >>>order. In that case the cruft at the bottom is only for occasional >>>reference. >>> >>> >> That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, >> where the >> quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely >> provided a week earlier (snail mail). > > And I'm not sure it's of value there either. If I emailed someone a week > ago and s/he responds today, proper quote trimming is of great value, > just as it is with newsgroups/mailing lists. The only time it wouldn't > much matter is if we're going back and forth with extreme rapidity, and > then you may as well bottom-post because it makes little difference. Bottom-posting is infinitely more evil than top-posting. The next time I have to scroll past fifteen pages of quoted text twelve layers deep, only to read "Me too!!!1!" or "LOL!!!" as the sole addition to the conversation, I'm going to go all Jack Nicholson in The Shining. What we want is *inline* posting, which follows the *trimmed* posting. If there happens to be only a single quoted section left untrimmed (as in this email) it may superficially look like bottom-posting, but it isn't. Top-posting is good for real-time rapid-fire conversations between two parties where the context is self-evident and you will never, ever need to look through the archives again. But bottom-posting without trimming combines the worst of both strategies. -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Paul wrote: >> >> >> That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, where >> the >> quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely >> provided a week earlier (snail mail). >> >> But mailing lists/newsgroups are the equivalent of a bulletin board >> open to anyone walking past. Bottom posting (or better, trim and >> intersperse) allows someone who has no prior knowledge of the message chain >> to read it from top-down, picking up the relevant points as they go... >> Rather than having to flip through a stack of pages looking for information >> being referenced by the top-most sheet of paper. >> >> >> -- >> Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber > > > I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails > at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted > on, bottom posting. If someone's late to a thread they can read from it > the bottom up. Remind me which direction text is usually written in English? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
> > > That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, where > the > quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely > provided a week earlier (snail mail). > > But mailing lists/newsgroups are the equivalent of a bulletin board > open to anyone walking past. Bottom posting (or better, trim and > intersperse) allows someone who has no prior knowledge of the message chain > to read it from top-down, picking up the relevant points as they go... > Rather than having to flip through a stack of pages looking for information > being referenced by the top-most sheet of paper. > > > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber I've been using email for thirty years, including thousands of group emails at many tech companies, and no one has ever suggested, let alone insisted on, bottom posting. If someone's late to a thread they can read from it the bottom up. But, for everyone who has been keeping up, not having to scroll is a big advantage. I'm not suggesting that the convention on this list be changed, but it's by no means the only option which makes sense. Paul C. > > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:18:32 -0700, Tobiah declaimed the > following: > >>Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through >>a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom >>is only for occasional reference. >> > > That concept is meaningful only email between two parties, where the > quoted material is a "courtesy copy" for content the other party likely > provided a week earlier (snail mail). And I'm not sure it's of value there either. If I emailed someone a week ago and s/he responds today, proper quote trimming is of great value, just as it is with newsgroups/mailing lists. The only time it wouldn't much matter is if we're going back and forth with extreme rapidity, and then you may as well bottom-post because it makes little difference. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, 18 May 2018, Chris Angelico wrote: Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned upon on this list? Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. Allow me to add an additional reason for trimming and responding beneath each quoted section: it puts the response in the proper context. People who top-post require the reader to scroll up and down to fit the response to the original message. Might as well just send a response without the original message and elimiate all scrolling ... as well as the context of the thread. When we respond to a received message (mail list or direct) we want the reader to understand what we write. Trimming away all but the pieces to which we respond makes communication more clear and, we hope, more effective. Regards, Rich -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
wrote: > > Is it frowned > > upon on this list? > > Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. > > ChrisA > - > kk. Thanks Paul > > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Paul wrote: > Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned > upon on this list? Trimming your replies saves even more. Yes, it is. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
Top posting saves a huge amount of useless scrolling time. Is it frowned upon on this list? On Thu, May 17, 2018, 7:26 AM Tobiah wrote: > Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through > a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom > is only for occasional reference. > > Ok, I yield! I know the bottom-posting party has congress > right now. > > On 05/17/2018 06:29 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2018-05-17, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > > > >> just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to > >> python > > [...] > >> On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < > >> steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > >>> > > > > And one such popular issue is how top-posting is evil. > > > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
Top posting is awesome for the reader plowing through a thread in order. In that case the cruft at the bottom is only for occasional reference. Ok, I yield! I know the bottom-posting party has congress right now. On 05/17/2018 06:29 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2018-05-17, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to python [...] On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: And one such popular issue is how top-posting is evil. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On 2018-05-17, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to > python [...] > On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < > steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: >> And one such popular issue is how top-posting is evil. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Catsup and Mustard all at over the place! It's the gmail.comHuman Hamburger! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Tue, 15 May 2018, 23:15 Tobiah, wrote: Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? It's part of the design philosophy of Python that the namespace of a new user-defined class should as far as possible start off as a "blank slate", not cluttered up with a bunch of predefined names. So, very general things like getattr() that apply to any object are implemented as functions that operate on an object, rather than methods. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
just a remark that people help and discuss on more issues unrelated to python Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ On Thu, 17 May 2018, 07:45 Steven D'Aprano, < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > > > weird, still not much traffic on this thread > > How many ways would you like us to answer the question? > > It is a FAQ: > > https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html > > Here's an older version: > > > http://www.effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm > > > > > -- > Steve > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Thu, 17 May 2018 05:25:44 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote: > weird, still not much traffic on this thread How many ways would you like us to answer the question? It is a FAQ: https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html Here's an older version: http://www.effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
weird, still not much traffic on this thread Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ On Tue, 15 May 2018, 23:15 Tobiah, wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? > > etc... > > > Thanks > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Tue, May 15, 2018, 6:00 PM Steven D'Aprano < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:10:07 -0700, Tobiah wrote: > > > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Because we're not serfs in the Kingdom of Nouns: > > https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html No, then it would be written LengthGetter(object).getLength() -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:10:07 -0700, Tobiah wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? Because we're not serfs in the Kingdom of Nouns: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html -- Steve -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Tobiah wrote: > Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? > > Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list.htm -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: syntax oddities
15.05.18 22:10, Tobiah пише: Why is it len(object) instead of object.len? Because the first form looked better to Guido van Rossum. Why is it getattr(object, item) rather then object.getattr(item)? How do you get the 'getattr' attribute then? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
