2.3 list reverse() bug?

[Arthur]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:14:24 GMT, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it>
wrote:

>Bjorn Pettersen wrote:
>   ...
>> There are of course times where a copy is needed (e.g. multi-version
>> scenarios) but most programmers don't bump into these very frequently...
>
>Here's my candidate for "most frequent scenario where copies are needed":
>
>for item in somelist:
>    if froobable(item):
>        somelist.append(frooble(item))
>    elif uncadable(item):
>        somelist.remove(item)
>
I got bit by this early on. 

There are many bites to be had in the learning process. 

But I agree that this is about the only time I felt the bite was *it*,
not me. A pitfall waiting to happen.  Although I don't think I truly
understood the implications of mutability until I fell into it. 

But this is also my approach, I guess. Not exactly writing Universe
Critical code, I tend to proceed with a light reading of the docs, and
learn by having my naive intuitions corrected - as necessary when
necessary, by finding something broken.

But there is I feel a valid point implicit in my original question.  

The "I have been using Python 42 years and never imported copy" is a
very ambiguous assertion,made time and again.  One can be routinely
using copies of lists and dict without ever importing copy, since
there are adequate built-in ways of making those copies, and the copy
method itself (I am never sure why or convinced it is for the best) is
not a built-in.

The assertion about copy being "overused"  or potentially overused,
can mean very different things in different contexts, as I think the
early part of this thread clearly demonstrates.

Don't we need to pick one meaning for that assertion? Or make the
meaning clear, when asserted.

Art