Robert Kern wrote: > His interpretation of your words is a perfectly valid one even in the > context of this thread. "in Python" explicitly provides a context for > the rest of the sentence. Exactly. "in Python", not "in an application with an existing API". (also, if the OP had been forced to use an existing API by external constraints, don't you think he would have mentioned it?) > In English, at least, it is perfectly reasonable to presume that explicit > contexts override implicit ones. Letting a part of a sentence override the context of the discussion is perhaps popular in certain tabloid journalist circles, and among slash- dot editors and US political bloggers, but most people do in fact have a context buffer memory that can hold more than a few words. (how come you're so sure I wasn't talking about, say, the Python Lisp com- piler? or the Monty Python sketch with the sadistic Belgian instrument- making monk? or a Harry Potter book?) I know what I meant. You know what I meant. Paul knows what I meant. If you still want to play the "but there is a way to interpret this in another way" game, file a bug report against the python.org "what is python?" summary page. </F>
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