[Python-Dev] Re: Anyone else gotten bizarre personal replies to mailing list posts?

Perhaps an unconventional artistic performance ;-) But more probably some kind of loony with a lot of free time... On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:49:15 +0100 Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:

I had I and still don't know what's going on. Mine was in a response to a release announcement so it was extra weird. Here is what I received:

I have now formally filed a final lawsuit against the manager of the python

...

program company, because all of him is also a criminal act, and GNU has EU legal certification, only my key can log in, and the key must be recycled after the death of the holder, and gitlab allows to change It’s the most basic and important crime to log in by people who support the snatching of the key. I have to explain to you that the key is to be registered and authenticated. My girlfriend wants to authenticate me with this key, and my information is also there. The key is authenticated, so I will not log in now, and I have submitted a lawsuit against him and the authority of the key holder to the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Union. I will not log in until there is a judgment or the U.S. Supreme Court allows me. People will be litigated, and the information that has been changed online will be found out, and I have library files, I have all the original materials, please cooperate with me, my key is called the Boss key, all websites of the program, companies, Institutions, banks, third-party platforms, and only my keys can have them, including patents and copyrights.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 16:44, Nathaniel Smith wrote:

...

I just got the reply below sent directly to my personal account, and I'm confused about what's going on. If it's just a one off I'll chalk it up to random internet weirdness, but if other folks are getting these too it might be something the list admins should look into? Or... something?

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hoi lam Poon Date: Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 02:01 Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Re: PEP 654: Exception Groups and except* [REPOST] To: Nathaniel Smith

Stop pretending, I can definitely get the key control file, your working group, all past actions and instructions cannot be cleared in front of me at all. You have been playing around for a few days, and I won’t stop you. Your face? I won’t, you know, you can’t drive me away, and that file is all, after I get it, you will be convicted even if you disband, I swear

在 2021年4月23日 週五 16:23，Nathaniel Smith 寫道：

...

...

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:26 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote:

...

Sure. This was in my list of reasons why the backwards compatibility tradeoffs are forcing us into awkward compromises. I only elaborated on it b/c in your last email you said you didn't understand why this was a problem :-). And except* is definitely useful. But I think there are options for 'except' that haven't been considered fully.

Do you have any suggestions, or are you just telling us to think harder? Because we've already thought as hard as we could and within all

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:50 PM Guido van Rossum wrote: the constraints (backwards compatibility and otherwise) we just couldn't think of a better one.

The main possibility that I don't think we've examined fully is to make 'except' blocks fire multiple times when there are multiple exceptions. We ruled it out early b/c it's incompatible with nested EGs, but if flat EGs are better anyway, then the balance shifts around and it might land somewhere different. it's a tricky discussion though, b/c both the current proposal and the alternative have very complex implications and downsides. So we probably shouldn't get too distracted by that until after the flat vs nested discussion has settled down more.

I'm not trying to filibuster here -- I really want some form of EGs to land. I think python has the potential to be the most elegant and accessible language around for writing concurrent programs, and EGs are a key part of that. I don't want to fight about anything; I just want to work together to make sure we have a full picture of our options, so we can be confident we're making the best choice.

...

The real cost here is that we would need a new "TracebackGroup" concept, since the internal data structures and APIs keep the traceback chain and the exception object separated until the exception is caught. In our early design stages we actually explored this and the complexity of the data structures was painful. We eventually realized that we didn't need this concept at all, and the result is much clearer, despite what you seem to think.

I'm not talking about TracebackGroups (at least, I think I'm not?). I think it can be done with exactly our current data structures, nothing new.

- When an EG is raised, build the traceback for just that EG while it's unwinding. This means if any C code peeks at exc_info while it's in flight, it'll only see the current branch of the traceback tree, but that seems fine. - When the exception is caught and we go to write back the traceback to its __traceback__ attribute, instead "peek through" the EG and append the built-up traceback entries onto each of the constituent exceptions.

You could get cleverer for efficiency, but that basic concept seems pretty simple and viable to me. What am I missing?

-n

-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VOBOWZGW... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/4BAOL763... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/