My Python annoyances

[Ben Collver]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> You don't need an invitation to disagree with another person's tracker 
> comment.  I assumed you knew this and took non-response as acquiesence. 
> That (closing no response by item submitter) is a fairly typical pattern , 
> by the way.  I wish it were otherwise.

I (incorrectly) took the comment to support rather than invalidate my 
report, and did not see anything to challenge.  Email is not 100% 
reliable, but I understand you don't have the time to hound submitters. 
  Do you think it might help to ask a question when you expect a 
response from the submitter?  It might act as a prompt.

> That is a different issue.  If, for instance, you think the docs could and 
> should be improved to make people more wary, reopen the item, change the 
> appropriate field to 'documentation' and please give a suggested addition 
> or change.

I trust the experts to take the appropriate action.  It seems equally 
reasonable to ignore the report for its triviality, or to treat the 
checksum as a long, since that is what zlib returns.

Ben