Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: naughty Python
Date: 5 Jan 2026 04:17:08 GMT
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <ms0sa3F48eqU6@mid.individual.net>
References: <CtydnVqzjrtfd5P0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <mrivo4Fo75lU1@mid.individual.net> <j_CcnYve_dcA78n0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <ZB_4R.1025895$Pf33.859799@fx18.iad> <79ScnZHy-uXnP8n0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <Xke5R.694257$LrS.177995@fx09.iad> <4oycne7Wk4RQ6sj0nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <10j48fv$2t1h9$12@dont-email.me> <EEednc17DsF7ecj0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10j5qgf$3etcd$6@dont-email.me> <10j60bb$3hhps$1@dont-email.me> <10j6n9s$3q8au$2@dont-email.me> <10j71fr$3rnk5$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10j88fb$at2l$2@dont-email.me> <20260102084925.000040b5@gmail.com> <10j9dis$mp8i$15@dont-email.me> <10j9f57$ovkv$2@dont-email.me> <mrr7j3F6n51U1@mid.individual.net> <10ja075$ukrb$2@dont-email.me> <wo26R.1133466$hd86.961013@fx13.iad> <mrtd28Fh1ovU5@mid.individual.net> <10jdv8g$22nf7$3@dont-email.me> <mrviurFsh36U1@mid.individual.net> <snz6R.1239139$79B9.1077250@fx14.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net aEIVxNORKR+l8em8BAr11Q7XPPyeOe9wfItLg+M2sibU9LbLSO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qSPqQMFQxuKAcfEFxXxMF0JA3nw= sha256:G+Tw1adHNewll8EKfbYgm0vt437ZaUnXbCvWdUDUg1c=
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80498 alt.folklore.computers:233177

On Sun, 04 Jan 2026 19:41:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-01-04, Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-01-04, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I look at some code and wonder "how the heck has this ever worked?",
>>> but the answer is that no one ever hit that combination of things
>>> before, or used that option.
>>
>> That's certainly the sensible explanation, but I've had scenarios like
>> that, even with my own code from the past, where I could swear up and
>> down that I myself had successfully used that code in the exact
>> scenario that would obviously break.
> 
> Yup.  Sounds like a Schrodinbug.  It should have never worked, but it
> does until you look at it - and then it never works again.

Conversely, it fails until you log a debug statement to see what's going 
on and it works.  I'd never, never just leave the debug in place, no 
siree.