<> and DeprecationWarning

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

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 =)

--

 

[Gerrit Holl]

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


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localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by "Inuit".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superceded by !=)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.

 

[Michael Hudson]

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

What about anathematized and so on?

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-December/011113.html

Cheers,
mwh

 

[Skip Montanaro]

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 localized group) that "Eskimo" has been superceded by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 has been superceded by !=)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

 

[Skip Montanaro]

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

 

[Gerrit Holl]

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

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

 

[Joost Kremers]

"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.

 

[Peter Hansen]

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

 

[Donn Cave]

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?[/QUOTE]

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, (e-mail address removed)

 

[Clare]

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.

 

[David Mertz]

|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...

 

[Neal Holtz]

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.

 

[Donn Cave]

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, (e-mail address removed)

 

[Erik Max Francis]

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
?

 

[Anton Vredegoor]

"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

 

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

(e-mail address removed) (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...

 

[Erik Max Francis]

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]

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).

 

[Dave Benjamin]

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

LOL!

 

[Floyd Davidson]

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