Hacker News Reader

Comment by moccajoghurt | Hacker News Reader

On a side note: Why do you quote """this way"""?

I got the idea from python and I use repeating double quotes ( " ) or chevrons ( > ) to demarcate the quoted text without spoiling the quotes within the text. It just feels cleaner in a way.

The pretentiousness of HN amazes me. It's incorrect syntax, mind you; Python isn't English.

I'm not sure if your "pretentious" comment was directed at todayiamme or not. If so:

If the idea of triple-quotes holds utility, what does it matter if it's "improper syntax" or not? I find your need to squabble over quotation styles pretentious.

Well, I think the idea that one can deform natural language at will to conform to usage in code, and that this is somehow analytically superior is what strikes people as pretentious. Natural language is rather more complex than artificial language. The inability to understand what rules it has and deal with its ambiguities is simply a failure.

I don't personally care, unless it's in a context where the expectation is that the language will be, well, "normal." I just thought I'd tease out what I think is being the criticism.

In any event, this is a matter of punctuation, not syntax. As for nesting quotations, you want to alternate between single and double quotation marks. It's pretty rare that we go beyond two levels of nested direct quotations in English, so it's rarely ambiguous.

I agree with the sentiment that natural language is not something to be manipulated at-will for any old reason, but I don't see how somebody's preference for code-style disambiguation is either pretentious or a failure. I think it did what it needed to do, and provided the post with the author's own sort of "flair". I didn't actually know for sure what the quotes were there to do in the first place, but it doesn't really matter. Perhaps that was my failing.

The poster explained their preference for the triple-quotes in a clear and completely non-inflammatory way, and then got shit on for being pretentious. I don't find that to be acceptable.

Another way is to use «angular quotes», which have the advantage that they can be nested without ambiguity.

But with the downside that they're nowhere to be found on the 106.

While it's not necessary, it distinguishes quotes from within the text you pasted from the quotes you are using to encapsulate the whole text.

Double and single quotation marks not good enough?

Maybe y'all should have paid more attention in humanities courses.

It's another way of accomplishing the same thing! What does it matter? I don't head down to the Deep South (United States) and make fun of people for their Southern accents, asking them why my own habitual way of speaking isn't "good enough" for them. It's the way they talk, and it works.

Talk about pretentious.

>>Talk about pretentious.

Yes, let's talk about pretentiousness. Like the pretentiousness involved in ignoring existing grammar structures that are accepted by everyone in favor of whatever you think works and then expect everyone else to conform your unique usage.

Take a good long look at yourself.

So ruthlessly conform to the status quo(te), or be pretentious? Call me pretentious.

Though the intent of the quoting style may have been unclear before it was explained, I now understand the utility. Would double-quotes have worked just fine? Probably. But so did todayiamme's method. Does it offer anything over double-quotes? Maybe not. But why shit on the guy because he did something differently than most other people would have?

The guy didn't ask you or anybody else to approve of or make use of his own style. If it's so offensive to you, don't read it. In this case, it just doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

Python habits, I assume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com