> >>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes: > > TW> Really ? Hmmmm... > > TW> [Tim Peters] > >> Me too! +1 on changing ">>" to "to" here. Then we can > >> introduce > TW> I guessed I missed the sarcasm ;-P [Barry A. Warsaw] > No, Tim just forgot to twist the blue knob while he was pressing the > shiny pedal on Guido's time machine. I've made the same mistake > myself before -- the VRTM can be as inscrutable as the BDFL himself at > times. Sadly, changing those opinions now would cause an irreparable > time paradox, the outcome of which would force Python to be called > Bacon and require you to type `albatross' instead of colons to start > every block. > > good-thing-tim-had-the-nose-plugs-in-or-Python-would-only-work-on- > 19-bit-architectures-ly y'rs, I have no idea what this is about. I see an old msg from Barry voting "-1" on changing ">>" to "to", but don't believe any such suggestion was ever made. And I'm sure that had such a suggestion ever been made, it would have been voted down at once by everyone. OTOH, there is *some* evidence that an amateur went mucking with the time machine! No 19-bit architectures, but somewhere in a reality distortion field around Vancouver, it appears that AIX actually survived long enough to see the 64-bit world, and that some yahoo vendor decided to make a version of C where sizeof(void*) > sizeof(long). There's no way either of those could have happened naturally. even-worse-i-woke-up-today-*old*!-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4