In article <UzYON.154262$TSTa.122307@fx47.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
....
>>By definition. Because the definition of "too much" implies having crossed
>>into the zone of being a bad thing.
>>
>>I would like to argue that there are things that there is no such thing as
>>too much of, but I can't think of any examples off hand.
>
>Money?

Think of all those lottery winners whose lives got totally screwed up by
money.

I'm of the opinion that if I did win the lottery (which I don't play, so
there's no chance of this happening), I'd keep a million or two to live on
(comfortably) and give the rest away (in one fell swoop) to some good
charity. I wouldn't tell anyone about it.

The hard part, in this day and age where everything is a scam, would be
finding an actually good/deserving charity.

--

Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

On 2024-04-02, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> Think of all those lottery winners whose lives got totally screwed up by
> money.
>
> I'm of the opinion that if I did win the lottery (which I don't play, so
> there's no chance of this happening), I'd keep a million or two to live on
> (comfortably) and give the rest away (in one fell swoop) to some good
> charity. I wouldn't tell anyone about it.

Yes; I've read the stories about this, so I'm well prepared. :)

Not telling anyone is important. If you're required to make an
appearance to accept, wear disguise. Mask, Groucho Marx glasses, ...

Don't let your name be publicized.

> The hard part, in this day and age where everything is a scam, would be
> finding an actually good/deserving charity.

Why, The Free Software Foundation. :)

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

In article <20240402131748.919@kylheku.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>On 2024-04-02, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> Think of all those lottery winners whose lives got totally screwed up by
>> money.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that if I did win the lottery (which I don't play, so
>> there's no chance of this happening), I'd keep a million or two to live on
>> (comfortably) and give the rest away (in one fell swoop) to some good
>> charity. I wouldn't tell anyone about it.
>
>Yes; I've read the stories about this, so I'm well prepared. :)
>
>Not telling anyone is important. If you're required to make an
>appearance to accept, wear disguise. Mask, Groucho Marx glasses, ...
>
>Don't let your name be publicized.

I wonder if you could just transfer the ticket as is to the charity, with
an understanding that you get a seat on the board (or some other no-show
job - this would be more than enough for you to live the rest of your life
on).

>> The hard part, in this day and age where everything is a scam, would be
>> finding an actually good/deserving charity.
>
>Why, The Free Software Foundation. :)

Good idea.

--
I love the poorly educated.

On 4/2/24 14:59, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
....
>> I would like to argue that there are things that there is no such thing as
>> too much of, but I can't think of any examples off hand.
>
> Money?

If you have lots of moeny, and insufficient protection, you can be in
danger. Also, a sufficiently large amount of money can crush you.

On 2 Apr 2024 08:26:14 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>
>>def diff( x ):
>> return 1 if x == 'x' else 0 if type( x )is str else[ 'sum', diff( x[
>> 1 ]), diff( x[ 2 ])]
>> if x[ 0 ]== 'sum' else None
>
> Oops! That was one long line starting with "return";
> it was wrapped by the newsreader, but is not correct Python anymore
> when wrapped this way.

It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think Python’s
version of the conditional expression is a complete abortion.

How about this, to at least get things the same way round as in the more
usual C-style conditional expression:

def diff(x) :
return \
[
lambda :
[
lambda :
[
lambda : None,
lambda : ['sum', diff(x[1]), diff(x[2])],
][x[0] == 'sum'](),
lambda : 0,
][isinstance(x, str)](),
lambda : 1,
][x == 'x']()
#end diff

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:20:06 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:26:19 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>> reading that indentation.
>>
>> If indentation is good, more indentation should be better.
>
> Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Should that principle be carried to excess, though?

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 05:28:15 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

> By that same logic, if water is good, more water should be better. Tell
> that to someone who is drowning.

Now there would be an example of too much logic, if you really want to
discuss such a thing with someone who is drowning, would it not?

> ... she was following a recommendation that she drink 8 glasses of water
> a day "for her health".

Also look up “water intoxication”. Can kill anybody.

On 02/04/2024 22:16, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <UzYON.154262$TSTa.122307@fx47.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ...
>>> By definition. Because the definition of "too much" implies having crossed
>>> into the zone of being a bad thing.
>>>
>>> I would like to argue that there are things that there is no such thing as
>>> too much of, but I can't think of any examples off hand.
>>
>> Money?
>
> Think of all those lottery winners whose lives got totally screwed up by
> money.
>
> I'm of the opinion that if I did win the lottery (which I don't play, so
> there's no chance of this happening), I'd keep a million or two to live on
> (comfortably) and give the rest away (in one fell swoop) to some good
> charity. I wouldn't tell anyone about it.
>

A lot more people think that, than actually follow through when they win
the lottery (or other large windfall). It turns out to be surprisingly
difficult to keep it a secret, surprisingly difficult psychologically to
give most of the money away, and surprisingly difficult to live happily
from a lump sum that you keep. People do fine when they win a large
prize (I guess up to a few $100k) - they pay off their mortgage, buy a
fancy car, take a nice holiday. But prizes of $10M and more usually
cause a lot of trouble for the winner.

> The hard part, in this day and age where everything is a scam, would be
> finding an actually good/deserving charity.
>

One lottery winner managed this. When he won about £160M in the
lottery, he bought his favourite football club (or "soccer club", for
those who come from a country where "football" doesn't involve feet or
round balls) and set it up as a trust owned by the club's fans.

On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2024 08:26:14 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>>
>>> def diff( x ):
>>> return 1 if x == 'x' else 0 if type( x )is str else[ 'sum', diff( x[
>>> 1 ]), diff( x[ 2 ])]
>>> if x[ 0 ]== 'sum' else None
>>
>> Oops! That was one long line starting with "return";
>> it was wrapped by the newsreader, but is not correct Python anymore
>> when wrapped this way.
>
> It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think Python’s
> version of the conditional expression is a complete abortion.
>

That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write normal
conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one from Perl.

> How about this, to at least get things the same way round as in the more
> usual C-style conditional expression:
>
> def diff(x) :
> return \
> [
> lambda :
> [
> lambda :
> [
> lambda : None,
> lambda : ['sum', diff(x[1]), diff(x[2])],
> ][x[0] == 'sum'](),
> lambda : 0,
> ][isinstance(x, str)](),
> lambda : 1,
> ][x == 'x']()
> #end diff

How about just writing Python code the way pretty much everyone else
writes Python code? In a simple and obvious manner :

def diff(x) :
if x == 'x' :
return 1
if isinstance(x, str) :
return 0
if x[0] == 'sum' :
return ['sum', diff(x[1]), diff(x[2])]
return None

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:50:28 +0200, David Brown wrote:

> How about just writing Python code the way pretty much everyone else
> writes Python code?

That can be generalized to switch-expressions as well. See my notebook on
“Simple Code-Shortening Idioms” at
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/python_topics_notebooks/>.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:20:06 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:26:19 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>>>
>>>> reading that indentation.
>>>
>>> If indentation is good, more indentation should be better.
>>
>> Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
>
> Should that principle be carried to excess, though?

Surely not if it's a good thing. :-)

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 1 Apr 2024 21:13:42 GMT
>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>>
>>> This stack "management" is "limited" in C:
>>
>>True enough, although as noted that's an implementation issue as much
>>as it is a limitation of the language spec. (I'm not sure how you could
>>handle that in a way that's both robust and reasonably C-ish...)
>
> Modern (64-bit) linux systems leave large buffer zones (unmapped addresses)
> on either side of the stack; a stack overflow or underflow will
> immediately fault if the RLIMIT_STACK value is exceeded.

....unless it’s exceeded by enough to reach some other mapped address.

https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2017/06/19/the-stack-clash

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:50:28 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think
> > Python’s version of the conditional expression is a complete
> > abortion.
> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a
> brief mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to
> write normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this
> one from Perl.

It's a real "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" situation.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2024 08:26:14 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>>>
>>>> def diff( x ):
>>>> return 1 if x == 'x' else 0 if type( x )is str else[ 'sum', diff( x[
>>>> 1 ]), diff( x[ 2 ])]
>>>> if x[ 0 ]== 'sum' else None
>>>
>>> Oops! That was one long line starting with "return";
>>> it was wrapped by the newsreader, but is not correct Python anymore
>>> when wrapped this way.
>> It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think
>> Python’s version of the conditional expression is a complete
>> abortion.
>
> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
> from Perl.

No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.

As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not clear
that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think
>>> Python’s version of the conditional expression is a complete
>>> abortion.
>>
>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>> from Perl.
>
> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.
>
> As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not clear
> that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
> expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).

I’ve been familiar with both for years and I think the Python version is
awful; in particular the ordering is a bizarre choice. The PEP where
they worked out the design acknowledges this but then they went ahead
and did it anyway...

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 03/04/2024 18:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On 2 Apr 2024 08:26:14 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>
>>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>>>>
>>>>> def diff( x ):
>>>>> return 1 if x == 'x' else 0 if type( x )is str else[ 'sum', diff( x[
>>>>> 1 ]), diff( x[ 2 ])]
>>>>> if x[ 0 ]== 'sum' else None
>>>>
>>>> Oops! That was one long line starting with "return";
>>>> it was wrapped by the newsreader, but is not correct Python anymore
>>>> when wrapped this way.
>>> It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think
>>> Python’s version of the conditional expression is a complete
>>> abortion.
>>
>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>> from Perl.
>
> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.

I am not very familiar with Perl, and don't know what are expressions or
statements. Perhaps I have been imagining things. I had the idea that
in Perl you could write "<do_this> if <condition>" as an alternative to
the more common imperative language ordering "if <condition> then
<do_this>".

>
> As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not clear
> that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
> expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).
>

I think expr1 and expr2 belong naturally together, as you are selecting
one or the other. If you are using a short-circuit evaluation, you
would express it in words as "evaluate cond, and based on that, evaluate
either expr1 and expr2". Having "expr1" first is a bit like a recipe
that says "add the sugar to the egg whites, having first beaten the egg
whites". It is an ordering that does not suit well in an imperative
language (I know Python is multi-paradigm, but it is basically imperative).

But I agree that familiarity could be a big factor in my subjective
opinion here.

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 1 Apr 2024 21:13:42 GMT
>>>ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>>>
>>>> This stack "management" is "limited" in C:
>>>
>>>True enough, although as noted that's an implementation issue as much
>>>as it is a limitation of the language spec. (I'm not sure how you could
>>>handle that in a way that's both robust and reasonably C-ish...)
>>
>> Modern (64-bit) linux systems leave large buffer zones (unmapped addresses)
>> on either side of the stack; a stack overflow or underflow will
>> immediately fault if the RLIMIT_STACK value is exceeded.
>
>...unless it’s exceeded by enough to reach some other mapped address.
>
>https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2017/06/19/the-stack-clash

Yes, clearly the buffer zones must be limited in size to allow space
for the rest of the application (and note that most extant processors
limit the virtual address space to 44 or 48 bits (up to 52 on ARM64)).

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 03/04/2024 18:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
>>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>>> from Perl.
>> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.
>
> I am not very familiar with Perl, and don't know what are expressions
> or statements. Perhaps I have been imagining things. I had the idea
> that in Perl you could write "<do_this> if <condition>" as an
> alternative to the more common imperative language ordering "if
> <condition> then <do_this>".

Yes, but it's not the same thing. Perl has postfix conditionals, so you
can write:

statement if condition;

but that's a statement, not an expression, and there's no form
equivalent to if/else. It's a specific case of "statement modifiers",
where the keyword can be any of if, unless, while, until, for, foreach,
or when. (The latter is for an experimental "switch" feature, disabled
by default in recent releases.)

https://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn#Statement-Modifiers

>> As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not
>> clear
>> that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
>> expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).
>
> I think expr1 and expr2 belong naturally together, as you are
> selecting one or the other. If you are using a short-circuit
> evaluation, you would express it in words as "evaluate cond, and based
> on that, evaluate either expr1 and expr2". Having "expr1" first is a
> bit like a recipe that says "add the sugar to the egg whites, having
> first beaten the egg whites". It is an ordering that does not suit
> well in an imperative language (I know Python is multi-paradigm, but
> it is basically imperative).
>
> But I agree that familiarity could be a big factor in my subjective
> opinion here.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, beyond a willingness
to accept the syntax and other rules of whatever language I'm using.
But I suggest that Python's "expr1 if condition else expr2" is intended
to emphasize expr1 over expr2, treating the condition being true as the
"normal" case. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 03/04/2024 19:19, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 03/04/2024 18:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>>>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>>>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>>>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>>>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>>>> from Perl.
>>> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.
>>
>> I am not very familiar with Perl, and don't know what are expressions
>> or statements. Perhaps I have been imagining things. I had the idea
>> that in Perl you could write "<do_this> if <condition>" as an
>> alternative to the more common imperative language ordering "if
>> <condition> then <do_this>".
>
> Yes, but it's not the same thing. Perl has postfix conditionals, so you
> can write:
>
> statement if condition;
>
> but that's a statement, not an expression, and there's no form
> equivalent to if/else. It's a specific case of "statement modifiers",
> where the keyword can be any of if, unless, while, until, for, foreach,
> or when. (The latter is for an experimental "switch" feature, disabled
> by default in recent releases.)

OK. That's a lot more than I knew.

However, I don't see a relevant distinction between a statement and an
expression as particularly significant here, at least in terms of code
clarity.

>
> https://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn#Statement-Modifiers
>
>>> As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not
>>> clear
>>> that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
>>> expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).
>>
>> I think expr1 and expr2 belong naturally together, as you are
>> selecting one or the other. If you are using a short-circuit
>> evaluation, you would express it in words as "evaluate cond, and based
>> on that, evaluate either expr1 and expr2". Having "expr1" first is a
>> bit like a recipe that says "add the sugar to the egg whites, having
>> first beaten the egg whites". It is an ordering that does not suit
>> well in an imperative language (I know Python is multi-paradigm, but
>> it is basically imperative).
>>
>> But I agree that familiarity could be a big factor in my subjective
>> opinion here.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, beyond a willingness
> to accept the syntax and other rules of whatever language I'm using.

Of course we use the languages we use, warts and all. It's rare that
anyone uses a language for a significant amount of work and doesn't
dislike at least some aspects of the language.

> But I suggest that Python's "expr1 if condition else expr2" is intended
> to emphasize expr1 over expr2, treating the condition being true as the
> "normal" case. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
>

Perhaps.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 03/04/2024 19:19, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 03/04/2024 18:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>>>>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>>>>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>>>>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>>>>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>>>>> from Perl.
>>>> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.
>>>
>>> I am not very familiar with Perl, and don't know what are expressions
>>> or statements. Perhaps I have been imagining things. I had the idea
>>> that in Perl you could write "<do_this> if <condition>" as an
>>> alternative to the more common imperative language ordering "if
>>> <condition> then <do_this>".
>> Yes, but it's not the same thing. Perl has postfix conditionals, so
>> you
>> can write:
>> statement if condition;
>> but that's a statement, not an expression, and there's no form
>> equivalent to if/else. It's a specific case of "statement modifiers",
>> where the keyword can be any of if, unless, while, until, for, foreach,
>> or when. (The latter is for an experimental "switch" feature, disabled
>> by default in recent releases.)
>
> OK. That's a lot more than I knew.
>
> However, I don't see a relevant distinction between a statement and an
> expression as particularly significant here, at least in terms of code
> clarity.

One distinction is that, for example, you can't use
statement if condition;
as part of a larger expression. Also, there's no else clause.

Perl's statement modifiers are an alternative syntax for conditional
*statements*. In particular, `statement if condition;` is equivalent to
`if (condition) { statement; }`. Their purpose is to allow some code to
be written more concisely. (Note that an if statement or other compound
statement requires { and }.)

Perl adopted C's ?: syntax for conditional expressions with little or
no change.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 4/3/24 03:38, David Brown wrote:
....
> lottery, he bought his favourite football club (or "soccer club", for
> those who come from a country where "football" doesn't involve feet or
> round balls)

I'm curious - in which country is "football" used as the name of a sport
that doesn't involve feet? I know of many countries where "football"
refers to a sport where the use of hands is prohibited, and others where
it's allowed, but I'm not aware of any where the use of feet to kick the
ball is prohibited.

In article <uukndn$6jp4$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On 4/3/24 03:38, David Brown wrote:
>...
>> lottery, he bought his favourite football club (or "soccer club", for
>> those who come from a country where "football" doesn't involve feet or
>> round balls)
>
>I'm curious - in which country is "football" used as the name of a sport
>that doesn't involve feet? I know of many countries where "football"
>refers to a sport where the use of hands is prohibited, and others where
>it's allowed, but I'm not aware of any where the use of feet to kick the
>ball is prohibited.

You are, of course, nitpicking. American football, as I'm sure you're
aware, is almost entirely not played with the feet.

Yes, there is kicking involved, but it is a very small part of the game and
is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Thus ends today's lecture on sports. You may resume your normally scheduled
programming. (See, that's a little joke, because this *is* a programming
newsgroup...)

--
(Cruz certainly has an odd face) ... it looks like someone sewed pieces of a
waterlogged Reagan mask together at gunpoint ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:16:31 +0100
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 03/04/2024 02:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> It’s bloody horrible Python even when wrapped correctly. I think
>>>> Python’s version of the conditional expression is a complete
>>>> abortion.
>>>
>>> That's probably the reason almost no one uses it. That post is the
>>> first time I have ever seen conditional expressions outside of a brief
>>> mention in a tutorial on Python conditionals showing how to write
>>> normal conditionals in the language. I think Python stole this one
>>> from Perl.
>>
>> No, Perl's conditional expressions use the same syntax as C's.
>>
>> As for whether Python's conditional expression syntax, it's not clear
>> that (cond ? expr1 : expr2) is better or worse than (expr1 if cond else
>> expr2) (unless you happen to be familiar with one of them).
>
>I’ve been familiar with both for years and I think the Python version is
>awful; in particular the ordering is a bizarre choice. The PEP where
>they worked out the design acknowledges this but then they went ahead
>and did it anyway...

I believe its known as being different for the sake of being different which
is closely related to change for changes sake. Its the reason screwed up the
WIndows GUI - a new generation of devs had to prove their could be different
to the previous one regardless of how badly their new version sucked. Or in
more general cases - we've all seen new managers come in and change processes
just to prove they were doing something.

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>I’ve been familiar with both for years and I think the Python version is
>awful; in particular the ordering is a bizarre choice.

The way this syntax is set up is apparently credited to
this guy named Guido, according to this PEP 308 thing.

Now, in English, we usually throw a comma in there when an
"if" clause comes first, 'cause it kinda throws off the normal
flow, you know? So that shows the default position for "if"
is actually after the main part. - Maybe Guido was making that
same kind of comparison to English, and that's why he decided
the post-"if" format works better.

In my example here, there were a whole bunch of these operators
all nested inside each other without any parentheses. And let
me tell you, when you start getting into that kind of nested
stuff with not parentheses in view, even the "?:" notation
can start looking pretty darn mysterious to some folks.

On 03/04/2024 at 08:38, David Brown wrote:
> One lottery winner managed this. When he won about £160M in the
> lottery, he bought his favourite football club (or "soccer club", for
> those who come from a country where "football" doesn't involve feet or
> round balls) and set it up as a trust owned by the club's fans.

I do wish people would stop intimating that the US is the only place
where Association Football (the football we play in the UK) is known as
soccer. When I was at secondary school (back in the 1960's) "soccer
practise" was a well know alternative to the term "football practise".

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT BE A SNICKERPUSS.