Thus spake Steven D'Aprano ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > If you're relying on cursory visual inspection to recognize harmful code, > you're already vulnerable to trojans.
What a daft thing to say. How do YOU recognize harmful code in a patch submission? Perhaps you blindly apply patches, and then run your test suite on a quarantined system, with an instrumented operating system to allow you to trace process execution, and then perform a few weeks worth of analysis on the data? Me, I try to understand a patch by reading it. Call me old-fashioned. > Code exchange regardless of human language is a nice principle, but it > doesn't work in practice. And this is clearly bunk. I have come accross code with transliterated identifiers and comments in a different language, and while understanding was hampered it wasn't impossible. > That's no different from typos in ASCII. There's no doubt that we'll give > the same answer we've always given for this problem: unit tests, pylint > and pychecker. A typo that can't be detected visually is fundamentally different problem from an ASCII typo, as many people in this thread have pointed out. Regards, Aldo -- Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nullcube.com Mob: 0419 492 863 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
