By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,771 Members | 1,669 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,771 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

<> and DeprecationWarning

P: n/a
Hi,

the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Is there a reason that it doesn't trigger a DeprecationWarning?

$ python2.2 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"
0
$ python2.3 -Wall -c "print 0 <> 0"
False

Or is the only reason that is has never been implemented?
IANACS, but this doesn't seem very complicated to implement to me...

yours,
Gerrit.

--
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:
http://www.sp.nl/

Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
77 Replies


P: n/a
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Who said that?

--
[ Wojtek Walczak - gminick (at) underground.org.pl ]
[ <http://gminick.linuxsecurity.pl/> ]
[ "...rozmaite zwroty, matowe od patyny dawnosci." ]

Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
Gerrit Holl wrote in article
<ma*************************************@python.or g>:
Hi,

the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.


Deprecated where? Possibly it is kept for backwards compatability, but it
still works fine in Python 2.3:
1==1 True 1!=1 False 1<>1 False 1<>2 True 1==2

False

--
Todd Stephens
ICQ# 3150790
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Jul 18 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 11:21, Wojtek Walczak wrote:
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Who said that?


Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van
Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as
religious an argument as Pythoneers get. I'm confident there's no way
<> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.

-Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUAP5QC0XEjvBPtnXfVAQJbtAP+Jk7p783PUDnclFvYW0 h6lddjPENkkBr3
YUbE5DbjNkBG+bDspyX2lNU3z3k60jBlhHKLXEe3wdccysi4ad EpGRdFiSM+iUU0
suvcN2Y4FnRXG4t+xKi+qAcoXdU/Qy8EjPddWD7J0Q0PPq2O2yoOgwxUDDYm30dv
ApwafLLHPZ8=
=1J2M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jul 18 '05 #4

P: n/a
Todd Stephens wrote:
Gerrit Holl wrote in article
<ma*************************************@python.or g>:
Hi,

the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.


Deprecated where? Possibly it is kept for backwards compatability, but it
still works fine in Python 2.3:


http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/operators.html :

"""
The comparison operators <> and != are alternate spellings of the same
operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.
"""
Alex

Jul 18 '05 #5

P: n/a
Wojtek Walczak wrote:
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisa?(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Who said that?


Python's official docs, e.g.:

http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/operators.html

The exact word used is "obsolescent" rather than "deprecated".
Alex

Jul 18 '05 #6

P: n/a
In article <ma*************************************@python.or g>,
Barry Warsaw <ba***@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 11:21, Wojtek Walczak wrote:
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time. Who said that?


Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van
Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as
religious an argument as Pythoneers get.


I've long since given in, though... I don't like having two ways to
spell one thing any more than the next guy. In the end it's just a
matter of what you're used to, and I'm totally used to != now. (Heck,
you can even find me occasionally indenting with _spaces_, that's how
low I've sunk ;-)
I'm confident there's no way
<> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.


That's for sure.

Just
Jul 18 '05 #7

P: n/a
Wojtek Walczak wrote:
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Who said that?


The documentation calls it obsolete:
"""
<> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.
"""
(http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...mparisons.html)

Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?

yours,
Gerrit.

--
215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and
cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and
saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:
http://www.sp.nl/

Jul 18 '05 #8

P: n/a
Alex Martelli wrote:
http://www.python.org/doc/current/ref/operators.html :

"""
The comparison operators <> and != are alternate spellings of the same
operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.
"""


Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are
synonymous in this context :-).

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Don't want you to leave / And I don't want to leave you
\__/ Chante Moore
Jul 18 '05 #9

P: n/a

Gerrit> Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and
Gerrit> deprecated?

Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?) having
several different words for "snow". The subtle differences are lost on
people who've never seen snow. ;-)

Dictionary.com (via Google) shows these relevant (and related) definitions:

obsolescent - Being in the process of passing out of use or usefulness;
becoming obsolete. (Also, in a biological sense "gradually
disappearing".

obsolete - No longer in use or outmoded in design, style, or
construction (two definitions).

deprecate - To express disapproval of; deplore, or to belittle;
depreciate.

Of these, deprecate's computer meaning seems to be quite far from it's
using in non-computer English. Further down the page, it shows a couple
more-to-our-needs definitions of deprecate:

Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the
process of being phased out, usually in favour of a specified
replacement. Deprecated features can, unfortunately, linger on for many
years. This term appears with distressing frequency in standards
documents when the committees writing the documents realise that large
amounts of extant (and presumably happily working) code depend on the
feature(s) that have passed out of favour. (from The Free On-line
Dictionary of Computing)

Said of a program or feature that is considered obsolescent and in the
process of being phased out, usually in favor of a specified
replacement. Deprecated features can, unfortunately, linger on for many
years. This term appears with distressing frequency in standards
documents when the committees writing the documents realize that large
amounts of extant (and presumably happily working) code depend on the
feature(s) that have passed out of favor. (from the Jargon File)

In the context of discussions about '<>', I think "obsolecent" and
"deprecated" mean roughly the same thing, though "deprecated" suggests a
more formal notion. In Python, if a language feature is deprecated, there
is generally a specified sunset period. As Barry suggests, even though '<>'
is obsolescent, it's likely to be around for a long while.

One might speculate that as 3.0 nears, the last release or two in the 2.x
line might provide a way for programmers to run their code with a __future__
import something like

from __future__ import deprecated_in_3

or if the effect is desired more globally, to specify a --three or -3 flag
on the interpreter command line.

Skip

Jul 18 '05 #10

P: n/a
Gerrit Holl wrote:

Wojtek Walczak wrote:
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.

Who said that?


The documentation calls it obsolete:
"""
<> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.
"""
(http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...mparisons.html)

Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?


The word obsolete is deprecated; use obscolescent instead. ;-)

-Peter
Jul 18 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Skip Montanaro" <sk**@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ma*************************************@pytho n.org...
In the context of discussions about '<>', I think "obsolecent" and
"deprecated" mean roughly the same thing, though "deprecated" suggests a
more formal notion. In Python, if a language feature is deprecated, there
is generally a specified sunset period. As Barry suggests, even though '<>'
is obsolescent, it's likely to be around for a long while.


In Fortran, it's the other way round. Heinous constructs like computed
GOTOs are obsolesecent in Fortran 90 and removed in Fortran 95,
whilst COMMON blocks are merely deprecated.

As you suggest, the subtle distinctions that may exist probably have to give
way to locally accepted usage.
Jul 18 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are
synonymous in this context :-).


Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate
deprecation warnings.

-Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUAP5Qve3EjvBPtnXfVAQKqqQP9F8Cssp43inCQT5SG8F KKjBrZQ6kodJZX
D0MTBEtFR/BMnXo5ZRSaTgd16jwKc8c60ZNC48WTIij9pmQB0Qvi/JSHwIrJcI1r
wjfh/B3O6BQXHtiqtJtyMhgt5kdYtJgDo5UKE2TOHjppu3/5zPSmtfDROm6nELBG
wyAtPIi2EsE=
=LwG0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jul 18 '05 #13

P: n/a
Barry Warsaw <ba***@python.org> wrote previously:
|I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the
heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!

Jul 18 '05 #14

P: n/a
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are
synonymous in this context :-).


Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate
deprecation warnings.


So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)
Alex

Jul 18 '05 #15

P: n/a
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate
deprecation warnings.


I was being semifacetious. In my experience, usually they are used in
different ways. Deprecation is a stricter form of obsolescence.
Obsolescent just means that the feature should no longer be used, since
it has been replaced by superior forms. Deprecated means that an
obsolescent form has actually been marked for future removal. A
deprecated feature can be removed, an obsolescent feature can become
deprecated.

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ If you're not besides me / I'll do your best / To carry on
\__/ India Arie
Jul 18 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:45, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
Barry Warsaw <ba***@python.org> wrote previously:
|I'm confident there's no way <> can be officially deprecated

Heck, we true believers should be more ambitious: Deprecate the
heretical '!=' pseudo-assignment!


Now there's a bold and enlightened Pythoneer! Three cheers!

-Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUAP5Q6BnEjvBPtnXfVAQIW3QP/YfcIce7L8JJ/oWwjbY49wTjUHd2j6lGm
zTwhC3rUs7ISpCkZtt0O0Yj+vOTPmLIgAZopbRu/VGxJo5JMOmigWxxI+f9PEliI
H0Hs/Ly9GDcXntyF71w9rAHK0oOiSgCZttdHeybADcPx/x0bTw+kOD1Q96rhRejT
EXAAk/uAg3Y=
=9DHp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jul 18 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 15:09, Alex Martelli wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are
synonymous in this context :-).


Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate
deprecation warnings.


So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)


class
SilentPendingMisguidedObsolescenceSuggestion(Pendi ngDeprecationWarning):
pass

:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUAP5Q6X3EjvBPtnXfVAQJ9mAP/f51+7+eVX3gKDWVifqI3sDM4MNv8Y345
Tk0kvPsqKEYpM60U2DrkVmpVCinkuEQnP+9nBbNye7M/30VRt8VGqbBpNjdNCvSu
mJPjt51kjd4cQaejSHY7/3Kr0Fn8SXHVXvKRcXegadX27ZuFQj2sonsIuRtfWnTm
yk36wyRta4M=
=KW/x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jul 18 '05 #18

P: n/a
Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:44:17 -0400, Barry Warsaw napisał(a):
> the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong tim=

e.
Who said that?


Well, Guido doesn't like it, but Just does, so that cancels out the Van
Rossum vote <wink>. I'm on Just's side though, but this is about as
religious an argument as Pythoneers get. I'm confident there's no way
<> can be officially deprecated as long as Python 2.x is alive.


Is there any outline to mark it as deprecated in docs and the code
somewhere between 2.x and 3.0? I know that this is _distant future_,
but we can think about it and maybe vote. I'm on Guido's side not
because I don't like it, but because I think that Python doesn't need
two 'not equal' operators. It reminds me about ruby and its methods
for built-in classes which are doubled in some cases. This is nothing more
than a pollution.
--
[ Wojtek Walczak - gminick (at) underground.org.pl ]
[ <http://gminick.linuxsecurity.pl/> ]
[ "...rozmaite zwroty, matowe od patyny dawnosci." ]

Jul 18 '05 #19

P: n/a
Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003
10:08 am:

Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)
I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a
localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by "Inuit". (Which,
to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that <> has been
superceded by !=)
-- ================================================== ============ <
wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
================================================== ============ <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <


Jul 18 '05 #20

P: n/a
Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003
10:08 am:

Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)
{Continuing the previous response -- I don't know of any way to
retrieve for editing a message that has been "sent" from KNode; unlike
Agent's outbox}

I think my dislike for != is that Python /does/ have a NOT keyword,
unlike C, where the ! alone is "not".

So I guess that I'm saying I'd have preferred to see

x not == y
(though this is where folks complaining about == vs = get the advantage)
vs
x != y

Though I feel comfortable with

x <> y
(it's faster to type, among other things -- left-shift, rock the right
hand over the ., keys -- vs right-shift, 1, move from right-shift to =)

-- ================================================== ============ <
wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
================================================== ============ <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <


Jul 18 '05 #21

P: n/a
Alex Martelli <al***@aleax.it> writes:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:59, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Now comes the argument over whether _obsolescent_ and _deprecated_ are
synonymous in this context :-).


Technically, I'd say they aren't because <> constructs don't generate
deprecation warnings.


So let's introduce obsolescence warnings...!-)


What about anathematized and so on?

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...er/011113.html

Cheers,
mwh

--
In short, just business as usual in the wacky world of floating
point <wink>. -- Tim Peters, comp.lang.python
Jul 18 '05 #22

P: n/a
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003
10:08 am:

Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)


I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a
localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by "Inuit". (Which,
to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that <> has been
superceded by !=)


The people are called Inuit. Eskimo is a European term, meaning "flesh
eater". It is not used by the Inuit, since it is not a kind name.

yours,
Gerrit.

--
199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a
man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:
http://www.sp.nl/

Jul 18 '05 #23

P: n/a
Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)


Dennis> I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a
Dennis> localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by
Dennis> "Inuit".

I considered "Inuit", but thought that "Inuit" related to "Eskimo" as
"Cherokee" related to "American Indian" (also no p.c. but common usage until
the last 20 years or so). So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill
in the blank):

"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

Dennis> (Which, to most of the US, is probably on par with stating that
Dennis> <> has been superceded by !=)

Indeed.

Skip

Jul 18 '05 #24

P: n/a
Skip Montanaro wrote:
"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
'person'.

the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living
further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater
of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)
Jul 18 '05 #25

P: n/a
Joost Kremers wrote:

Skip Montanaro wrote:
"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
'person'.

the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living
further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater
of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.


And not just disfavoured, but deprecated *and* obsolete, except, clearly
in the some parts outside .ca, where in the context of this thread we
obviously have to say it's merely "obsolescent". ;-)

-Peter
Jul 18 '05 #26

P: n/a

Dennis> Though I feel comfortable with

Dennis> x <> y

I suspect anyone who's written significant amounts of Pascal will find it
comfortable (though I imagine that population is dwindling as CS departments
struggle to make their programs more "relevant" and bow to the gods from
Redmond). '!=' makes more mnemonic sense if you're a C programmer, despite
being slightly harder to type. '<>' sort of suggests 'less than or greater
than'. Maybe it should be written as '<|>'.

I-think-we-need-a-<wink>-operator-ly, y'rs,

Skip

Jul 18 '05 #27

P: n/a
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Skip Montanaro fed this fish to the penguins on Monday 20 October 2003
10:08 am:
Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)


Though I feel comfortable with

x <> y
(it's faster to type, among other things -- left-shift, rock the right
hand over the ., keys -- vs right-shift, 1, move from right-shift to =)


The problem to me is that it does not feel logical for non numeric types.
For me, x <> y reads as "x < y or x > y", which is not the same thing.
I don't really like != either, since ! is quite arbitrary for "not", but
I guess it is the least bad solution.

yours,
Gerrit.

--
130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another
man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and
sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the
wife is blameless.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Kom in verzet tegen dit kabinet:
http://www.sp.nl/

Jul 18 '05 #28

P: n/a
Peter Hansen wrote:

~ Joost Kremers wrote:
~ >
~ > Skip Montanaro wrote:
~ > > "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".
~ > >
~ > > Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?
~ >
~ > to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
~ > inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
~ > their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
~ > 'person'.
~ >
~ > the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living
~ > further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater
~ > of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.
~
~ And not just disfavoured, but deprecated *and* obsolete, except, clearly
~ in the some parts outside .ca, where in the context of this thread we
~ obviously have to say it's merely "obsolescent". ;-)

I didn't know Eskimo was a bad word. I didn't know American Indian was a
bad word(s) either. When I was little we called Native Americans "Red
Indians". I guess that wouldn't go down very well today, that's the term
I use in my head though, just cos I'm used to it. Come to think of it, if
you said the word America to me when I was little, I thought of Native
Americans only and not, erm, "Modern Americans".

I'm 25 and from England btw.

Jul 18 '05 #29

P: n/a
In article <ma*************************************@python.or g>,
Skip Montanaro <sk**@pobox.com> wrote:
....
>> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)


Dennis> I believe (but will admit that there is a chance that it is a
Dennis> localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by
Dennis> "Inuit".

I considered "Inuit", but thought that "Inuit" related to "Eskimo" as
"Cherokee" related to "American Indian" (also no p.c. but common usage until
the last 20 years or so). So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill
in the blank):

"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


I'm a few hours south of that border, but then the people
in question aren't confined to Canada anyway.

The way I understand it, Eskimo still prevails, in the absence
of any general alternative.

Your understanding of Inuit agrees with mine - they might well
prefer that term, but Yupik Eskimo people presumably wouldn't.
The only clear error is to confuse the Aleuts with Eskimos.

Donn Cave, do**@u.washington.edu
Jul 18 '05 #30

P: n/a
Skip Montanaro <sk**@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<ma*************************************@pyth on.org>...
Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill
in the blank):

"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


I think 'Inuit' would be best here. For a decent definition, see

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inuit

We also use 'aboriginal', but that is a broader term that also includes
southerners.
Jul 18 '05 #31

P: n/a
Gerrit Holl <ge****@nl.linux.org> wrote previously:
|The problem to me is that it does not feel logical for non numeric types.
|For me, x <> y reads as "x < y or x > y", which is not the same thing.

This still makes sense to me in a kind of metaphorical way, even for
non-comparable types. Of course, I'm on record as disliking things that
don't compare successfully (an abomination introduced relatively
recently), so I guess that influences it.

The problem, to my mind, with '!=' is the series:

x += y
x -= y
x %= y
x &= y
x != y

One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the
others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an
expression).

Nonetheless, I'm with Just here. Despite being the worse spelling, only
having '!=' is better than having two alternatives. And when they pry
the '<>' from my cold, dead hands, I'll stop using it in the next life
(where the angels program in Python 3000).

Yours, David...

--
mertz@ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i
gnosis _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r
..cx _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u
_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s
Jul 18 '05 #32

P: n/a
In article <63**************************@posting.google.com >,
nh****@docuweb.ca (Neal Holtz) wrote:
Skip Montanaro <sk**@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:<ma*************************************@pyth on.org>...
> Yes, but it's sort of like the Eskimos ("arctic native americans"?)

So, I guess the [OT] pop quiz of the day is (fill
in the blank):

"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


I think 'Inuit' would be best here. For a decent definition, see

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inuit


Hm, so follow that to usage note for Eskimo and read that
there is no general substitute that includes all people
known as Eskimos, and further that the supposed grounds
for offense is doubtful anyway.

To call a Yupik "Inuit", is like calling a Norwegian "Swedish"
because some unknown person once claimed that "Scandinavian"
meant "eater of smelly cheese".

Donn Cave, do**@u.washington.edu
Jul 18 '05 #33

P: n/a
David Mertz wrote:
One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like
the
others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an
expression).


But in that case, why doesn't

x == y

send you into a recursive discomfort loop from which you never return
:-)?

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ God is love, but get it in writing.
\__/ Gypsy Rose Lee
Jul 18 '05 #34

P: n/a
> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?


To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian
American" is strange. To mention that "Eskimos have more than X names
for snow" is not done here because of overexposure to the concept, yet
I did it twice today, once comparing it to the number of names French
Europeans have for "maronnes" and now this post.

Anton
Jul 18 '05 #35

P: n/a
an***@vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote previously:
|> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".
|>Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?
|To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian
|American" is strange.

Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than
"Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves are
quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to
politics--over best names. In a lot of cases, when referring to a
particular person, naming her particular nation and tribe (Navaho, Oglala
Sioux, etc.) is better. But lots of NAs themselves prefer "Indian" as a
term.

Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger
percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or
their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite apart
from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different
large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in the
USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a
rule.

Yours, Lulu...

--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[me***@gnosis.cx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Jul 18 '05 #36

P: n/a
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger
percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or
their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite
apart
from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different
large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in
the
USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a
rule.


I suspect that in and around large cities, thus tending toward greater
diversity, the unadorned term _Indian_ will be assumed to refer to Asian
Indians rather than Native Americans. I certainly know that's always
been the case around here (San Francisco South Bay Area), even well
before the dot com bubble in which the demand for software people
brought a lot of (Asian) Indian folks over here. Particularly with the
more common usage of the term "Native American," I think the inherent
ambiguity in the group name _Indian_ is starting to fade here in the US.

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Extremes meet.
\__/ John Hall Wheelock
Jul 18 '05 #37

P: n/a
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian
American" is strange.


Do you mean American Indian and Indian-American meaning different things
(they do; the former refers to Native Americans and the latter refers to
naturalized Indians of Asian origin), or that American Indian (i.e.,
Native Americans) should be better be referred to as Indian Americans
(which it shouldn't, X-American means a naturalized person from X, like
Japanese-American or Polish-American).

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Extremes meet.
\__/ John Hall Wheelock
Jul 18 '05 #38

P: n/a
In article <3F***************@engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:
Gerrit Holl wrote:

Wojtek Walczak wrote:
> Dnia Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:31 +0200, Gerrit Holl napisał(a):
> > the <> inequality test operator has been deprecated for a loooooong time.
> Who said that?


The documentation calls it obsolete:
"""
<> and != are alternate spellings for the same operator. != is the preferred spelling; <> is obsolescent.
"""
(http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/...mparisons.html)

Is there a difference between obsolescent, obsolete and deprecated?


The word obsolete is deprecated; use obscolescent instead. ;-)


LOL!

--
..:[ dave benjamin (ramenboy) -:- www.ramenfest.com -:- www.3dex.com ]:.
: d r i n k i n g l i f e o u t o f t h e c o n t a i n e r :
Jul 18 '05 #39

P: n/a
Joost Kremers <jo**********@yahoo.com> wrote:
Skip Montanaro wrote:
"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".

Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?

The problem with the above is that there is no way to fill in
the blank and be correct! The terms are reversed...

"Native American" is to "American Indian"
as "Eskimo" is to "Alutiiq".

WE can swap the term "Alutiiq" with a number of other terms,
such as Inuit, Yupik, Inupiat, Yupiaq. And, we can swap
"American Indian" with such terms as "Eskimos", "Hawaiians",
"Samoans"...
to the best of my knowledge, Inuit is the term that the original
inhabitants of (northern) Canada and of Greenland use for themselves. in
their language, Inuktitut, it is the plural of inut, which means 'man' or
'person'.
The singular is "inuk". It means a great deal more than just
"man" or "person". (It means something on the nature of
"genuine man", as being a human with a human spirit, as opposed
to a human which is actually an animal temporarily masquerading
as a human for a short time. The derivation has to do with an
"original owner" concept relating to ones spirit.)
the word 'eskimo' was a pejorative term used by (non-inuit) peoples living
further to the south on the american continent, and has the meaning 'eater
of raw meat'. because of this origin, it is disfavoured.


That has always been a nice sounding reason for the derogatory
use of the term Eskimo by Canadians (blame it on Indians!);
however, it isn't true.

There are two theories as to the etymology of "Eskimo", and in
neither case is it in any way derogatory. Ives Goddard at the
Smithsonian Institute believes it derives from Algonquin words
meaning "snowshoe netter", and Jose Mailhot from Quebec believes
it came from words meaning "people who speak a different
language". Both are quite reasonable, and though I personally
tend to side with Mailhot, she publishes in French and is little
known compared to Goddard, and hence most dictionaries etc are
now using his definitions.

Whatever, in Canada all Eskimo people are in fact Inuit, and it
is considered impolite to call them anything else. By the same
token, the *only* word in the English language which properly
describes all Eskimo people is the term "Eskimo". "Inuit" does
not, because in Alaska there are many Eskimos who are not Inuit,
and in Siberia all Eskimos are Yupik. Moreover, in Alaska the
Inupiat people, who are the same as the Canadian Inuit people,
simply do *not* like to be called Inuit! (They use the word
Inupiat.)

It should also be noted that Alaska's Eskimo people are
virtually all rather fond of the term "Eskimo".

Quayanaqpuk,
Ap'a

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com
Jul 18 '05 #40

P: n/a
Donn Cave <do**@u.washington.edu> wrote:

Your understanding of Inuit agrees with mine - they might well
prefer that term, but Yupik Eskimo people presumably wouldn't.
Even the Inupiat (who are technically Inuit) people in Alaska
don't care to be referred to as "Inuit". They like Inupiat,
and they certainly don't mind being called "Eskimos".
The only clear error is to confuse the Aleuts with Eskimos.

Donn Cave, do**@u.washington.edu


I've seen Japanese people walk up to Yup'ik people in the
Anchorage airport and start speaking Japanese to them...

And a lot of the tourist who come to Fairbanks think that every
Alaska Native person the see is an Eskimo, while in fact they
are looking at local Athabascan people.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com
Jul 18 '05 #41

P: n/a
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.cx> wrote:
an***@vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) wrote previously:
|> "Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".
|>Anyone in the .ca domain care to educate the .us folks?
|To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian
|American" is strange.

Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than
"Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves are
quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to
politics--over best names. In a lot of cases, when referring to a
particular person, naming her particular nation and tribe (Navaho, Oglala
Sioux, etc.) is better. But lots of NAs themselves prefer "Indian" as a
term.
The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal
government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in
the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,
Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American
Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.

It obviously can't mean anyone who is Canadian, by definition.
Probably an influence on the names is that Canada has a much larger
percentage of Indian immigrants (i.e. from India) than does the US--or
their families of 2nd or 3rd generation. The name "Indian" quite apart
from coming from a 500 year old mistake, refers to a quite different
large group of Canadians. Not that Indian-Americans are a rarity in the
USA either, but we USAians are really quite thick in the head, as a
rule.

Yours, Lulu...


Another oddity with naming conventions came up about a dozen
years ago. If my memory serves, it was a meeting in regard to
education, and involved the Bureau of Indian Affairs or
whatever, but it was a national symposium of Native people...
and when they had to choose a set of terms, they ran into a
problem. Seems that there was obstinate opposition to the term
"native" by many Lower-48 Indian groups, yet Alaskans absolutely
insisted that the *only* way to reference all of the people
indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they
adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US
Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of
people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native
American.

(Boy, any of those Lower-48 folks who don't think there's any
difference between Canadians and USAians, really ought to try
talking about this subject... it'll cure 'em of such a notion!)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl***@barrow.com
Jul 18 '05 #42

P: n/a
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters fed this fish to the penguins on Tuesday 21
October 2003 18:32 pm:
Incidentally, in Canada, "First Nations" is generally used rather than
"Native American." But in either case, Native Americans themselves
are quite split--as would be any group of people when it comes to
I'm afraid I still tend to use Amerind at times -- a term I think I've
only seen in some older Andre Norton novels (possibly "Beastmaster" --
which was science fiction and NOT the sword&sorcery the moview would
have one believe). Of course, if I'm going to use Amerind, for
consistency I should also use Asiaind <G>

-- ================================================== ============ <
wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
================================================== ============ <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <


Jul 18 '05 #43

P: n/a
Floyd Davidson fed this fish to the penguins on Tuesday 21 October 2003
20:47 pm:
meaning "snowshoe netter", and Jose Mailhot from Quebec believes
it came from words meaning "people who speak a different
language". Both are quite reasonable, and though I personally
Wasn't that the application of the ancient "barbarian" (one whose
speech sounded like "barbarbar..." <G>

-- ================================================== ============ <
wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
================================================== ============ <
Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <


Jul 18 '05 #44

P: n/a
Floyd Davidson:
The term "Native American" is a coined word that the US Federal
government came up with to reference *all* indigenous people in
the US and its territories. Hence it includes American Indians,
Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American
Somoans and probably somebody I've forgotten to name.
When did the phrase come into use? I'm thinking about the
indigenous populations of ex- US territories, like the 40 or so
years we held the Phillipines, or the time (times?) we took over
Cuba .. or our current control of Iraq (does that make it
a territory? A protectorate? Do I need a passport to enter
country?... I guess so.)

Anyway, there's something strange about the thought of
native Phillipinos all being called Native American. I'm
also suprised about Puerto Rico in that list. I thought
most of the people there came from European/African
lineage, with little of the local pre-Columbus genetics
or culture remaining. But I can easily be wrong. I am
definite that all the native Puerto Ricanos I know don't
think of themselves as Native American.
indigenous to Alaska was to use the term Native. Hence, they
adopted the phrase "American Indian and Alaska Native peoples".

You'll find that phrase has been widely adopted by the US
Federal government when it refers specifically to that group of
people, as opposed to the wider significance of the term Native
American.


Interesting. One of the local radio shows is "Native American
Calling". It's a talk show, and people from Alaska call in.
They also include news from around the US and Canada.
I'll be on the lookout now to see if/when they say "Alaska
Native peoples"

There's also the low-grade complaints because some people
use the term "Indian Country" while others don't like that term.

Speaking of naming ethnicities, I've heard about Americans
applying the "African-American" to black people in the UK. :)

Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com
Jul 18 '05 #45

P: n/a
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.com> wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
To my (eu-domain) eye the use of "American Indian" instead of "Indian
American" is strange.


Do you mean American Indian and Indian-American meaning different things
(they do; the former refers to Native Americans and the latter refers to
naturalized Indians of Asian origin), or that American Indian (i.e.,
Native Americans) should be better be referred to as Indian Americans
(which it shouldn't, X-American means a naturalized person from X, like
Japanese-American or Polish-American).


The problem with this naming scheme is that the natural way for an
Indian who was born in America to identify with the Indian cultural
heritage first and in second place with being an American, seems to be
taken by the denominination for *foreign* Indians.

Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would
mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of
Texas?

Anton
Jul 18 '05 #46

P: n/a
me***@gnosis.cx (David Mertz) wrote in
news:ma*************************************@pytho n.org:
The problem, to my mind, with '!=' is the series:

x += y
x -= y
x %= y
x &= y
x != y

One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the
others (the first four are assignment statements, the last an
expression).


Why didn't you pick this list instead?

x <= y
x >= y
x != y
x == y
x /= y

One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like the
others (the first four are expressions, the last an assignment statement).
--
Duncan Booth du****@rcp.co.uk
int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"
"\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?
Jul 18 '05 #47

P: n/a
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
The problem with this naming scheme is that the natural way for an
Indian who was born in America to identify with the Indian cultural
heritage first and in second place with being an American, seems to be
taken by the denominination for *foreign* Indians.
I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue.
There's no question that there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the term
_American Indian_ to mean a Native American -- which comes from
misexpectations of the discoverers and explorers of the New World -- vs.
an American of (Asian) Indian origin. But that's inevitable in evolving
terminology (in any field, not just the one we're talking about here).
If I emigrated to India, became naturalized, and renounced my
citizenship in the United States, saying (in English) that I'm an
American-Indian would be ambiguous, but that's simply because of an
existing "corruption" in the terminology, because "American Indian" is a
preexisting term overloaded to mean something else. It doesn't have
anything to do with the adjective-noun form of the phrasing.
Would you also rather say American Texan, because Texan American would
mean an American that is naturalized from the foreign country of
Texas?


I've never heard anybody use either term, due to the obvious redundancy,
so I can't comment.

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.
\__/ Anatole France
Jul 18 '05 #48

P: n/a
Duncan Booth wrote:
Why didn't you pick this list instead?

x <= y
x >= y
x != y
x == y
x /= y

One of these things is not like the others. REALLY, really not like
the
others (the first four are expressions, the last an assignment
statement).


And, by the way, that /= token is used to mean other things in other
languages (for instance, it's "not equal to" in Lisp).

--
Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.
\__/ Anatole France
Jul 18 '05 #49

P: n/a
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.com> wrote:
I'm still not sure what you're objecting to in the bigger issue.
There's no question that there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the term
_American Indian_ to mean a Native American -- which comes from
misexpectations of the discoverers and explorers of the New World -- vs.
an American of (Asian) Indian origin.
In my original post, which was an answer to :
"Native American" is to "American Indian" as ______ is to "Eskimo".


I tried to "brainstorm" some possible delicate connotations of the
terms (perhaps not so successfully), because I think that is the way
to solve analogy problems like these.

Since you cut away the problem my post was about in your first reply
to my post it's not a surprise you are now having difficulties seeing
the bigger issue, which IMO was about solving this analogy problem.

The answer is possibly "Indian" (with ambiguous connotations)

Anton
Jul 18 '05 #50

77 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.