Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Cameron Simpson Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: I'm missing something here... Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:13:22 +1100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <569440EB.4090204@lucidity.plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de xEXtkrkISru73TvCXwn7GgytSRK0ceksYvVhoVb4MzLA== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'executed': 0.07; 'subject:missing': 0.07; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; 'complaining': 0.09; 'argument': 0.15; '>on': 0.16; 'cc:name:python': 0.16; 'compilers': 0.16; 'erik': 0.16; 'from:addr:cs': 0.16; 'from:addr:zip.com.au': 0.16; 'from:name:cameron simpson': 0.16; 'message-id:@cskk.homeip.net': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'simpson': 0.16; 'skip:> 20': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'skip': 0.18; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'cc:2**1': 0.22; 'cheers,': 0.22; 'cc:addr:gmail.com': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'complain': 0.29; 'that,': 0.34; 'skip:> 10': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.37; 'times.': 0.38; 'received:localdomain': 0.38; 'why': 0.39; 'body': 0.61; 'cameron': 0.66; "'for'": 0.84 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <569440EB.4090204@lucidity.plus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:101521 On 11Jan2016 23:55, Erik wrote: >On 11/01/16 23:26, Skip Montanaro wrote: >>If I change the last line of find_problems to call >>prob_dates.update(), the message disappears. Why is pylint (1.4.2 BTW) >>complaining that the prob_dates argument of find_problems is unused >>when I use the |= operator? > >Is it complaining about that, or is it because the 'for' loop body might be >executed zero times? The former. Almost any loop _might_ be executed zero times. Compilers and linters etc should only complain if they can prove the loop is always executed zero times. Cheers, Cameron Simpson