Unexpected Python Behavior

[Michael Hoffman]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

[Andrea Griffini][color=blue]
>[Greg Ewing][color=green]
>>[Alex Martelli][color=darkred]
>>>I think it's in fact very nice syntax:[/color]
>>This is a hack. Don't do it.[/color]
> Who are you to question what Him, the Great Alex, says about it ?[/color]

Who are you to question what Greg Ewing says?

I'm having trouble figuring out whether the rest of this message is
supposed to be ironic or sarcastic or something. I can say with
certainty that it is pretty silly.
--
Michael Hoffman

[Andrea Griffini]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:32:31 +0100, Michael Hoffman
<m.h.3.9.1.with out.dots.at.cam .ac.uk@example. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>[Andrea Griffini][color=green]
> >[Greg Ewing][color=darkred]
>>>[Alex Martelli]
>>>>I think it's in fact very nice syntax:
>>>This is a hack. Don't do it.[/color]
>> Who are you to question what Him, the Great Alex, says about it ?[/color]
>
>Who are you to question what Greg Ewing says?[/color]

Are we going to go around in circles forever asking
each other "who are you to say this" ?
[color=blue]
>I'm having trouble figuring out whether the rest of this message is
>supposed to be ironic or sarcastic or something. I can say with
>certainty that it is pretty silly.[/color]

It's a 7am posting, so please be forgiving at least
for that reason.

I didn't reply to Alex message because it's clear that he has
a very personal problem with me (and ... no, I've no idea why).
My decision so was to stop feeding his hate and I ignored him;
that one is a problem he has with me and not the other way
around... may be he can try to find a solution inside himself
or talking to a good psychotherapist ... I don't think I can
be of any help about it.

What kind of surprised me is however that no one else contested
the nonsenses and/or irrelevant facts in his message. So I came
to the conclusion that here we're leaving the land of logic.

I saw just one message saying what I (as a newbie to python)
think is obvious to at least anyone with a reasonable brain
and cold enough to think without prejudice; i.e. that defining

def foo(x, cache=[])

when you've no intention to receive that parameter is a purely,
simply, uncontestably, stinking, ugly hack (also IMO adding
underscores to that "cache" name is not making this hack really
any prettier).

And, in case you're really interested, I'm just a programmer
with an apparently tweaked sense of humor that approached
python very recently (that's why I don't consider myself part
of the python "world", yet).

Andrea

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

Andrea Griffini <agriff@tin.i t> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I didn't reply to Alex message because it's clear that he has
> a very personal problem with me (and ... no, I've no idea why).[/color]

I don't know why you started posting flaming attacks against me four
years or so ago (on Italian newsgroups on C++, where you were advocating
returning error codes rather than raising exceptions, and I the
reverse), but it was so blatant (you specifically accused me of
intellectual dishonesty, just like that, out of the blue!) that I
killfiled you -- and I remember a few days later somebody _else_ (who
actually agreed with you on the technical aspects of the discussion!)
was trying to point out to you that you were the one who had exceeded
the boundaries of good taste and indulged in uncalled-for personal
attacks. We're talking years 2000 or 2001, not the dark ages, so I bet
Google Groups has everything in its archives if one just googles for
both of our surnames together.

Of course, I'm using a different newsreader now, with a different
killfile and all, and I wasn't reminded of that occasion until you
showed your colors again -- now, I see, by trying to accuse _me_ of
having mysterious personal problems with you, when each time the foam is
so evidently at _your_ mouth...
[color=blue]
> My decision so was to stop feeding his hate and I ignored him;[/color]

Oh, I see, _that_ must be why you spewed so much venom in your post that
yet another "innocent bystander" felt it had to be condemned...!

Guess you deserve commendation for your consistency: four years ago you
said you were new to C++ yet had the arrogance to start personal attacks
and insults against me on the subject, now you say you're new to Python
and you behave identically -- my compliments.

Well, *PLONK* again, then, hopefully for good.


Alex

[Steve Holden]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

Andrea Griffini wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:32:31 +0100, Michael Hoffman
> <m.h.3.9.1.with out.dots.at.cam .ac.uk@example. com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>[Andrea Griffini]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>[Greg Ewing]
>>>
>>>>[Alex Martelli]
>>>>
>>>>>I think it's in fact very nice syntax:
>>>>
>>>>This is a hack. Don't do it.
>>>
>>>Who are you to question what Him, the Great Alex, says about it ?[/color]
>>
>>Who are you to question what Greg Ewing says?[/color]
>
>
> Are we going to go around in circles forever asking
> each other "who are you to say this" ?
>[/color]
Apparently.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>I'm having trouble figuring out whether the rest of this message is
>>supposed to be ironic or sarcastic or something. I can say with
>>certainty that it is pretty silly.[/color]
>
>
> It's a 7am posting, so please be forgiving at least
> for that reason.
>
> I didn't reply to Alex message because it's clear that he has
> a very personal problem with me (and ... no, I've no idea why).[/color]

It's clear to you, possibly.
[color=blue]
> My decision so was to stop feeding his hate and I ignored him;[/color]

Hate? This doesn't sound like the Alex I know (and I'm talking about
through the face meetings here, not just net acquaintanceshi p) This guy
was the technical editor for my book, and I know him to be not only
technically brilliant but also an affable and congenial person).
[color=blue]
> that one is a problem he has with me and not the other way
> around... may be he can try to find a solution inside himself
> or talking to a good psychotherapist ... I don't think I can
> be of any help about it.
>[/color]
Well, clearly not with an attitude like that. Frankly that's about as
insulting as you should be getting around here. In fact I think you've
gone too far. I preferred the sarcasm.
[color=blue]
> What kind of surprised me is however that no one else contested
> the nonsenses and/or irrelevant facts in his message. So I came
> to the conclusion that here we're leaving the land of logic.
>[/color]
Perhaps anyone who has opinions that vary from yours has a problem
requiring psychotherapeut ic help? I'm beginning to sense that I too am a
little unbalanced.
[color=blue]
> I saw just one message saying what I (as a newbie to python)
> think is obvious to at least anyone with a reasonable brain
> and cold enough to think without prejudice; i.e. that defining
>
> def foo(x, cache=[])
>
> when you've no intention to receive that parameter is a purely,
> simply, uncontestably, stinking, ugly hack (also IMO adding
> underscores to that "cache" name is not making this hack really
> any prettier).
>[/color]
Well, of course, as a newbie to Python you are clearly in a far better
position than anyone else to say what's reasonable. This couldn't
possibly be a sensible use of name scoping rules to avoid the necessity
for a static declaration, could it? Dammit, you know what a function is,
and if it has parameters then we should damned well use them in the calls.

Right.
[color=blue]
> And, in case you're really interested, I'm just a programmer
> with an apparently tweaked sense of humor that approached
> python very recently (that's why I don't consider myself part
> of the python "world", yet).
>
> Andrea
>[/color]
Well I don't often say this, but I think we have to get the attitude
adjusters out here. Just sit in this chair, please, you'll just feel a
little prick with a needle [this is a lie: I don't really have a
needle]. There, that should feel better. Take three of the purple
tablets a day, and come back when you are able to indulge in a
difference of opinion without suggesting that those of a different view
require therapy.

I don't suppose it's come to your attention that Alex is the author of
"Python in a Nutshell" and co-author of "The Python Cookbook", and
therefore rather well qualified to pontificate on the vagaries of Python
usage? I suspect the only offense he is actually guilty of is treating
you as better-informed than you actually are.

regards
Steve

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.com> wrote:
...[color=blue]
> I don't suppose it's come to your attention that Alex is the author of
> "Python in a Nutshell" and co-author of "The Python Cookbook", and
> therefore rather well qualified to pontificate on the vagaries of Python[/color]

Heh, this may in fact have something to do with his attacks -- we're
both nobodies from a nowhere land (Italy well qualifies for such
epithets;-), yet I'm reasonably well-known in this field and he's not...
some people need no more motivation than envy, in order to start spewing
venomonous attacks, after all;-).

Seriously, being "well qualified to pontificate" isn't really the issue
here. For example, Greg Ewing is surely just as well qualified, yet
disagrees with me (and with the anonymous author of FAQ 1.4.21, and
presumably with Ka-Ping Yee, who uses the cache-as-default idiom in the
pydoc.py module he contributed to the Python Standard Library, ...) on
the specific point (while agreeing with me that evaluating default
values once at def-time is a good thing -- he has not commented on that
on this thread, but it's easy to google for what he said in the past).

Yet, none of us take such technical disagreements as excuses to spew
insults at each other, nor do we have the arrogance to proclaim our
opinions in the matter "uncontestable" . I think these differences
between typical Pythonistas' behavior, and AG's, are important -- and
maybe, at one remove, they may help explain why you, I, Greg, Ka-Ping,
etc, can be "well qualified"... readiness to listen, and to argue with
the common courtesy civil people maintain, can help one _learn_...


Alex

[Andrea Griffini]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:34:50 -0400, Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I didn't reply to Alex message because it's clear that he has
>> a very personal problem with me (and ... no, I've no idea why).[/color]
>
>It's clear to you, possibly.[/color]

Yes. Feel also free to add "IMO" at every phrase. I originally
wrote "it's clear to me" but then removed it because I didn't
like the sound of it (to me...with me).
[color=blue][color=green]
>> My decision so was to stop feeding his hate and I ignored him;[/color]
>
>Hate? This doesn't sound like the Alex I know (and I'm talking about
>through the face meetings here, not just net acquaintanceshi p) This guy
>was the technical editor for my book, and I know him to be not only
>technically brilliant but also an affable and congenial person).[/color]

Yes... I can very well understand that this is not the Alex you
know, but it's the Alex I know. Would you just please blank
out the names and read the messages instead ?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> that one is a problem he has with me and not the other way
>> around... may be he can try to find a solution inside himself
>> or talking to a good psychotherapist ... I don't think I can
>> be of any help about it.
>>[/color]
>Well, clearly not with an attitude like that. Frankly that's about as
>insulting as you should be getting around here. In fact I think you've
>gone too far. I preferred the sarcasm.[/color]

Can you take the time to read my messages in this thread
and Alex' replies to my messages, and tell me when was that
I passed the reasonable limit ?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> What kind of surprised me is however that no one else contested
>> the nonsenses and/or irrelevant facts in his message. So I came
>> to the conclusion that here we're leaving the land of logic.
>>[/color]
>Perhaps anyone who has opinions that vary from yours has a problem
>requiring psychotherapeut ic help? I'm beginning to sense that I too am a
>little unbalanced.[/color]

I'm not talking about this. I think Alex has a problem
with me and I really do not understand why this happened.
The problem (as I see it) started many years ago in a C++
newsgroup when I simply noted that at that time it was
IMO unfair to compare what the return code approach was
actually able to deliver (basically *all* the software we
were using at that time) with what the exception approach
was just promising.
The theme is of course very complex, but the discussion
simply ended on the spot because Alex understood that I
was calling him a dishonest (?) and then plonked me or at
least said he did (and shortly after actually left the group).
Before the alleged plonk I asked if he could actually provide
evidence that the exceptions-everywhere approach was paying
off in complex systems (I think exceptions are just wonderful
in a few special cases - i.e. when you can "rollback" or
at least "restart" a subsystem - but they're not a panacea
in general when your program state is complex, distributed
and unprotected... the core problem I see is that "strong"
exception safety doesn't scale up by composition) but his
reply was that he couldn't provide examples because it was
secret material (!?).

All this is probably on google, of course; but it's in italian.

What surprised me however is that nonsenses like the risk
of name rebinding (that pervades python; that is the
*essence* of python) were not commented. Why f,g = g,f and
not math.sin,math.c os = math.cos,math.s in ?

May be is the "pythonic" way to always privately import and
then bind functions to local names and doing all this
by using fake parameters with a default value ?

I was suprised that no one noted that if we want statics,
and the "hasattr" approach is slow then *the slowness* is
the problem. Probably a static keyword binding local names
to globally living objects to my newbie eyes would be the
best and would better describe the static local in C
(even if in python it would be arbitrary "how much" static
the var should be ... being the function definition an
executable statement should they be shared just between
calls of the same function instance ? should they be
shared between all instances of that function object ?)

I was also quite suprised about the discussion moving
to the microseconds when if I care about microseconds
the python is a questionable choice. True that python
is often "fast enough", but If I've to write uglier code
to get a 1.2x speedup then I can do it with other languages
instead of using something that is *essentially* slow
and get a 10x speedup. Ugly for ugly I'd use C++ (or
pyrex or whatever else) for that part if speed is a problem.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I saw just one message saying what I (as a newbie to python)
>> think is obvious to at least anyone with a reasonable brain
>> and cold enough to think without prejudice; i.e. that defining
>>
>> def foo(x, cache=[])
>>
>> when you've no intention to receive that parameter is a purely,
>> simply, uncontestably, stinking, ugly hack (also IMO adding
>> underscores to that "cache" name is not making this hack really
>> any prettier).
>>[/color]
>Well, of course, as a newbie to Python you are clearly in a far better
>position than anyone else to say what's reasonable. This couldn't
>possibly be a sensible use of name scoping rules to avoid the necessity
>for a static declaration, could it? Dammit, you know what a function is,
>and if it has parameters then we should damned well use them in the calls.
>
>Right.[/color]

I'm sorry I don't understand if this is sarcasm or not...
are you really saying that using those fake parameters is
not an ugly stinking hack for the absence of a sensible
way to declare function static variables ?

Where do you stop ? Is it beautiful to use them also for
binding builtin functions you need ?

What about adding an every-other parameter with a string
default just for adding per-parameter documentation ?
[color=blue]
>Well I don't often say this, but I think we have to get the attitude
>adjusters out here. Just sit in this chair, please, you'll just feel a
>little prick with a needle [this is a lie: I don't really have a
>needle]. There, that should feel better. Take three of the purple
>tablets a day, and come back when you are able to indulge in a
>difference of opinion without suggesting that those of a different view
>require therapy.[/color]

Is this humor ? I've had and I'm still having a lot of
discussions with people not agreeing with me, but luckily
enough not many were so personally aggressive as Alex.
With normal people I normally end up agreeing on something,
or my counter-part does the same, or, most often, it's a
mix of the two. There are cases in which the discussion
ends up with everyone remaining with the same starting
position. But rarely I got to the "puh-LEEZE" level.

When things tend to degenerate my standard reaction has
been lately to just keep silent. This normally happens
after writing a VERY long reply, that I just avoid
posting... not because I fear the consequences; but
because all the content seems me so obvious that makes
clear the discussion left the land of logic and it's
entering the war territory. When someone I'm discussing
with is avoiding acknowledging even the obvious (and
it's clear that it can't be for a mental limit problem)
it's also obvious there's no point in keep discussing.
[color=blue]
>I don't suppose it's come to your attention that Alex is the author of
>"Python in a Nutshell" and co-author of "The Python Cookbook", and
>therefore rather well qualified to pontificate on the vagaries of Python
>usage?[/color]

Sure I know that. I didn't read either however (yet).

But the key point is that your name is just not enough
to make drink what you say without thinking; sorry if
this sounds offending, but that philosophy is a part
of me I just can't shut off.

Say something convincing and I'll be more than happy to
agree with you. Say something that IMO is wrong and I'll
say it's wrong, whatever is your name (remaining of
course well prepared to accept an explanation if you're
kind enough to explain why you stand behind your position).

And (drumrolls) Alex Martelli name is surely not the
biggest I've had discussion with. By far.
[color=blue]
>I suspect the only offense he is actually guilty of is treating
>you as better-informed than you actually are.[/color]

I can't find a way to say more clearly that I know
basically nothing of python. The biggest python program
I wrote so far is totalling a ridicolous 3800 lines.

But tell me that

def foo(x,my_person al_cache_so_ple ase_dont_pass_t his_parm=[]):
...

is beautiful and I can sign a paper where is stated
that you're either kidding or a dork.

Andrea

[Andrea Griffini]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:38:14 +0200, aleaxit@yahoo.c om (Alex Martelli)
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.com> wrote:
> ...[color=green]
>> I don't suppose it's come to your attention that Alex is the author of
>> "Python in a Nutshell" and co-author of "The Python Cookbook", and
>> therefore rather well qualified to pontificate on the vagaries of Python[/color]
>
>Heh, this may in fact have something to do with his attacks -- we're
>both nobodies from a nowhere land (Italy well qualifies for such
>epithets;-), yet I'm reasonably well-known in this field and he's not...
>some people need no more motivation than envy, in order to start spewing
>venomonous attacks, after all;-).[/color]

So you feel attacked. You also feel being a nobody. That would
explain the reaction... but can you tell me when I started
spewing venomonous attacks ? I don't understand this part.
[color=blue]
>Seriously, being "well qualified to pontificate" isn't really the issue
>here. For example, Greg Ewing is surely just as well qualified, yet
>disagrees with me (and with the anonymous author of FAQ 1.4.21, and
>presumably with Ka-Ping Yee, who uses the cache-as-default idiom in the
>pydoc.py module he contributed to the Python Standard Library, ...) on
>the specific point (while agreeing with me that evaluating default
>values once at def-time is a good thing -- he has not commented on that
>on this thread, but it's easy to google for what he said in the past).[/color]

Evaluating defaults at def-time is IMO a reasonable decision;
not the only reasonable one I can see (but remember I'm a newbie),
but still quite reasonable.

(mis)using modifiable defaults is however quite another thing,
the former *allows* for the latter; but the two are not IMO the
same. One thing is what is legal, another is what is moral.
[color=blue]
>Yet, none of us take such technical disagreements as excuses to spew
>insults at each other, nor do we have the arrogance to proclaim our
>opinions in the matter "uncontestable" .[/color]

"puh-LEEZE" is the courtesy form for IMHO ? I'm an "hypocrit" just
because your little brain isn't able to grasp that difference ?

Then "I piss on your head" (please consider this as the courtesy
form for "I don't agree wholeheartedly with you") :-)
[color=blue]
>I think these differences
>between typical Pythonistas' behavior, and AG's, are important -- and
>maybe, at one remove, they may help explain why you, I, Greg, Ka-Ping,
>etc, can be "well qualified"... readiness to listen, and to argue with
>the common courtesy civil people maintain, can help one _learn_...[/color]

Is this a calling everyone for a vote ? Sounds sorta funny...
and sort of pathetic at the same time.

Is there any specific reason for which you want me out of
python ? I was quite seriously thinking to pushing a lot for
adopting python as the main language for developing our next
CAD-CAM...

Andrea

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Unexpected Python Behavior

>>>>> "Andrea" == Andrea Griffini <agriff@tin.i t> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> through the face meetings here, not just net acquaintanceshi p)
>> This guy was the technical editor for my book, and I know him
>> to be not only technically brilliant but also an affable and
>> congenial person).[/color][/color]

Andrea> Yes... I can very well understand that this is not the
Andrea> Alex you know, but it's the Alex I know. Would you just
Andrea> please blank out the names and read the messages instead ?

Doesn't help much.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> that one is a problem he has with me and not the other way
>>> around... may be he can try to find a solution inside himself
>>> or talking to a good psychotherapist ... I don't think I can be
>>> of any help about it.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well, clearly not with an attitude like that. Frankly that's
>> about as insulting as you should be getting around here. In
>> fact I think you've gone too far. I preferred the sarcasm.[/color][/color]

Andrea> Can you take the time to read my messages in this thread
Andrea> and Alex' replies to my messages, and tell me when was
Andrea> that I passed the reasonable limit ?

Actually, you appeared to pass the reasonable limits for this
particular newsgroup. This newsgroup is noticeably friendlier than
most of the other newsgroups out there - I don't know why, it might be
a byproduct of some cosmic similarity between people who dig Python,
or just a nice, contagious tradition.

What you might consider appropriate in a C++ newsgroup sticks out like
a sore thumb here. Going for Ad Hominem is always a bad idea,
especially when provoked by a purely technical discussion. I believe
you will learn to appreciate this tradition when you hang out more
around here.

Andrea> The problem (as I see it) started many years ago in a C++
Andrea> newsgroup when I simply noted that at that time it was IMO
Andrea> unfair to compare what the return code approach was
Andrea> actually able to deliver (basically *all* the software we
Andrea> were using at that time) with what the exception approach
Andrea> was just promising.

I guess comparing the ups and downs is reasonable, rewriting a big
pile of code is a different thing. Surely you agree that in Python the
exceptions are the way to go?

Andrea> off in complex systems (I think exceptions are just
Andrea> wonderful in a few special cases - i.e. when you can
Andrea> "rollback" or at least "restart" a subsystem - but they're
Andrea> not a panacea in general when your program state is
Andrea> complex, distributed and unprotected... the core problem I

Coding using exceptions is just much less ledious and
error-prone. Also, the code is much more readable when every line
doesn't have CroakIfError(st uff_that_needs_ to_be_done()). Exceptions
are slighly less cool in C++ because of all the memory management
complications.

Andrea> May be is the "pythonic" way to always privately import
Andrea> and then bind functions to local names and doing all this
Andrea> by using fake parameters with a default value ?

Of course not.

Andrea> I was also quite suprised about the discussion moving to
Andrea> the microseconds when if I care about microseconds the
Andrea> python is a questionable choice. True that python is often
Andrea> "fast enough", but If I've to write uglier code to get a
Andrea> 1.2x speedup then I can do it with other languages instead
Andrea> of using something that is *essentially* slow and get a
Andrea> 10x speedup. Ugly for ugly I'd use C++ (or

1.2x speedup just isn't worth the ugly code, for typical
situations. Just go ahead and write pretty code, it's probably fast
enough as well. Premature optimization is the root of all evil.

Andrea> But the key point is that your name is just not enough to
Andrea> make drink what you say without thinking; sorry if this
Andrea> sounds offending, but that philosophy is a part of me I
Andrea> just can't shut off.

Name, perhaps not, but when you are a newbie at something, the more
experienced ones are right surprisingly often. Questioning stuff when
you are new is almost a rite of passage :-).

Andrea> And (drumrolls) Alex Martelli name is surely not the
Andrea> biggest I've had discussion with. By far.

Again, completely unnecessary.

People do get pissed off on usenet, for one reason or another. When I
feel insulted (once here, a few times elsewhere), I just like to point
out briefly that what the other guy said was insulting, and stop
there. Unlike in "real life", the parent comment is there for all to
see, and everyone can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps the other
guy had a bad day, or has some personal issues to sort out; rarely is
it worth it fire back. There are no "debate points" to score, and
nobody thinks that whoever wields the sharpest sarcasm wins. It's not
slashdot, we are here with our real names :-).

Andrea> But tell me that

Andrea> def foo(x,my_person al_cache_so_ple ase_dont_pass_t his_parm=[]):
Andrea> ...

Andrea> is beautiful and I can sign a paper where is stated that
Andrea> you're either kidding or a dork.

It's not beautiful, but it works, and is already in the language. Come
on, you are an old C++ hand, you are used to dealing with the horrors
of chtulhuan proportions daily. I'm a C++ programmer as well, and
nothing in Python compares to the dirt I deal with every day. Private
cache in param list is a minor issue.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[gmduncan]

&quot;Alien v. Predator&quot; (was Re: Unexpected Python Behavior)


(Hopefully a humourous followup - click here to escape.)

Yup, I walked 5 ks into town today to watch the movie only to find the
cinema was closed. Grumble - trudge back home (avoiding swooping nesting
magpies) to kick the cats and then browse c.l.p to relax (such a nice civilized
news-group).

And I see this - tusk, tusk. Jeez these Mediterranean types know
how to perpetuate a feud. Make you wonder what their married life would be like ;)

OOPs - just saw the clock; "The Godfathers" now on TV !

Bye

- Gary


P.S. Don't tell mee which of these vicious critters won ( I'm talking about
this c.l.p exchange - I'll see the movie tomorrow and see that victor ;)




Alex Martelli wrote:[color=blue]
> Andrea Griffini <agriff@tin.i t> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>I didn't reply to Alex message because it's clear that he has
>>a very personal problem with me (and ... no, I've no idea why).[/color]
>
>
> I don't know why you started posting flaming attacks against me four
> years or so ago (on Italian newsgroups on C++, where you were advocating
> returning error codes rather than raising exceptions, and I the
> reverse), but it was so blatant (you specifically accused me of
> intellectual dishonesty, just like that, out of the blue!) that I
> killfiled you -- and I remember a few days later somebody _else_ (who
> actually agreed with you on the technical aspects of the discussion!)
> was trying to point out to you that you were the one who had exceeded
> the boundaries of good taste and indulged in uncalled-for personal
> attacks. We're talking years 2000 or 2001, not the dark ages, so I bet
> Google Groups has everything in its archives if one just googles for
> both of our surnames together.
>
> Of course, I'm using a different newsreader now, with a different
> killfile and all, and I wasn't reminded of that occasion until you
> showed your colors again -- now, I see, by trying to accuse _me_ of
> having mysterious personal problems with you, when each time the foam is
> so evidently at _your_ mouth...
>
>[color=green]
>>My decision so was to stop feeding his hate and I ignored him;[/color]
>
>
> Oh, I see, _that_ must be why you spewed so much venom in your post that
> yet another "innocent bystander" felt it had to be condemned...!
>
> Guess you deserve commendation for your consistency: four years ago you
> said you were new to C++ yet had the arrogance to start personal attacks
> and insults against me on the subject, now you say you're new to Python
> and you behave identically -- my compliments.
>
> Well, *PLONK* again, then, hopefully for good.
>
>
> Alex[/color]