A Bug By Any Other Name ...
gherron at islandtraining.com
Mon Jul 6 02:33:36 EDT 2009
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:28:43 -0300, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve at remove-this-cybersource.com.au> escribió:
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:32:46 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> I wonder how many people have been tripped up by the fact that
>>> fail silently for numeric-valued n.
>> What do you mean, "fail silently"? They do exactly what you should
>>>>> ++5 # positive of a positive number is positive
>> I'm not sure what "bug" you're seeing. Perhaps it's your expectations
>> that are buggy, not Python.
> Well, those expectations are taken seriously when new features are
> introduced into the language - and sometimes the feature is dismissed
> just because it would be confusing for some.
> If a += 1 works, expecting ++a to have the same meaning is very
> reasonable (for those coming from languages with a ++ operator, like C
> or Java) - more when ++a is a perfectly valid expression.
> If this issue isn't listed under the various "Python gotchas"
> articles, it should...
Well sure, it's not unreasonable to expect ++n and --n to behave as in
other languages, and since they don't, perhaps they should be listed as
a "Python gotcha".
But even so, it's quite arrogant of the OP to flaunt his ignorance of
the language by claiming this is a bug and a failure. It shouldn't have
been all that hard for him to figure out what was really happening.
More information about the Python-list