Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #101533 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: I'm missing something here... Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000
| From | Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: I'm missing something here... |
| Message-ID | <mailman.50.1452590005.13488.python-list@python.org> |
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.
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web