Michael Witten added the comment: * Bugs, by their very nature, are often obscure; some of the worst in history have lain dormant, unseen, for years or perhaps even decades.
Unsurprisingly, then, this bug is also a corner case that would be unknowingly triggered in practice only rarely; consequently, it is unsurprising that it has not been reported previously, despite the fact that the mistake is OBVIOUS in a retrospective (and literal!) reading of PEP 235, which is clearly naive in its view of the world of computing systems. * Furthermore, in any computing system that is sufficiently complex, there is usually a workaround for any particular bug, which thus diminishes the impetus to report the problem at all; this just compounds the obscurity of the bug. * The more obscure a bug, the less compelling the ratio of the reward to the solution effort, particularly when the objections are mired not in technical analysis, but rather in an incomplete understanding of the report, as well as perhaps some kind of political puffery. So, why bother even beginning a discussion of the issue? Indeed, this correspondence has proven to me (once again, unfortunately) that it's usually an utter waste of resources to attempt to solve problems purely for the benefit of others. Let the confused gnash their teeth, and let the clever hack their own way out of trouble. As long as my personal itch has been scratched in some way, that's good enough. * How is it that you did not perceive the irrelevance of [at least the rest of] your reply? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28670> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com