Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: I'm missing something here...
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:13:21 +0000
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <mailman.50.1452590005.13488.python-list@python.org>
References: <569440EB.4090204@lucidity.plus.com> <20160112071322.GA12153@cskk.homeip.net> <5694B84D.4060803@lucidity.plus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de SwM8Gjel2opH3q3qb7RYuADYEKO+bRQ6HRZm9qQQYzPA==
Return-Path: <python@lucidity.plus.com>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.005
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'executed': 0.07; 'subject:missing': 0.07; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; 'bug': 0.10; '_after_': 0.16; 'cc:name:python': 0.16; 'compilers': 0.16; 'erik': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; "he'd": 0.16; 'reason.': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'simpson': 0.16; 'variable.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'skip': 0.18; 'cc:2**0': 0.20; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'possibility': 0.27; 'complain': 0.29; 'changed': 0.33; 'raising': 0.33; 'could': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; '(and': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'times.': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'received:192': 0.39; 'some': 0.40; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.62; 'different': 0.63; 'times': 0.63; 'cameron': 0.66; "'for'": 0.84; 'touched': 0.84
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=H98muLsi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=Ypmeq7T0cKALDUsRPCToMg==:117 a=Ypmeq7T0cKALDUsRPCToMg==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=Y5D83ev1dq6JqidfdjIA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5694B84D.4060803@lucidity.plus.com>
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:101533

Apologies for self-replying

On 12/01/16 08:24, Erik wrote:
> On 12/01/16 07:13, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I was just raising the
> possibility that the bug could have been that the loop was (incorrectly)
> determined to be executed zero times for some reason.

Having just read it again, I note that Skip said he'd changed the |= to 
something different (and I've since read the solution to the question).

I had misread what Skip said to mean he had added a new line _after_ the 
'for' loop which touched the variable.

E.