Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #101533
| From | Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: I'm missing something here... |
| Date | 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.50.1452590005.13488.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| References | <569440EB.4090204@lucidity.plus.com> <20160112071322.GA12153@cskk.homeip.net> <5694B84D.4060803@lucidity.plus.com> |
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 comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: I'm missing something here... Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-01-12 09:13 +0000
csiph-web