On 05/07/2012 20:41, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote: >> anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36: >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: >>>> From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add >>>> grouper: >>>> >>>> "This has been rejected before. >>> >>> I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that >>> these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that >>> as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting. >> >> The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell >> them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions >> and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know >> what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark >> "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of >> arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the >> same result as it did before, often several times before. > > Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others > time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there > is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting > gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" > for others to admire. > > No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why > don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If > people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant > and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody > Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows > why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also > help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some > major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more > interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it > easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed > before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading > old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make > users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An > "organic" way to keep traffic low. > > Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for > developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as > Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to > munch-munch on the sequence data). > > Wheew. :-F > Can I safely assume that you are volunteering to do the work required? -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
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