Bugs in CPython 3.1.1 [wave.py]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:55:27 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> * Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:47:31 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> 
>>>> PS: Next time it would have helped to include a URL to the issue.
>>>>
>>>>     http://bugs.python.org/issue7681
>>>>
>>>>     FYI there is already some feedback in the tracker.
>>> Yeah, someone who had the bright idea that maybe there isn't a bug,
>>> thinking instead that maybe a "wrong" name in *a comment* might be the
>>> culprit  --  of all things!
>>>
>>> He was probably just trying to be helpful.
>>>
>>> But what do you say to someone who tries to help but is really just
>>> making a mess of things?
>> 
>> Before pointing out the mote in another person's eye, you should
>> consider the enormous beam in yours. You initially reported a
>> completely bogus error (NameError: name 'framerate' is not defined) and
>> Brian responded to that.
>> 
>> I don't know why you're claiming he was responding to a name that was
>> commented out, when you included a traceback clearly showing that the
>> line was executed.
> 
> No, the out-commented line was not executed and was not shown in any
> traceback.

I have no idea what commented lines NOT shown you are talking about, but 
you attacked Brian for referring to the NameError relating to framerate. 
You claimed that he was:

    thinking instead that maybe a "wrong" name in *a comment* 
    might be the culprit

But in fact your initial error report included this traceback, which 
displays a very much uncommented line of code:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Documents and Settings\Alf\sound\error.py", line 6, in <module>
    writer.setframerate( framerate )
NameError: name 'framerate' is not defined


Alf, I know you are able to read tracebacks, because you've demonstrated 
the ability in the past. And I'm pretty sure that you're aware that can 
too, because you're not an idiot.

So what puzzles me is, given that you can read the traceback you posted, 
and we can too, why on earth do you claim that the reference to framerate 
was commented out? The line that was executed is right there.




> Comments are not executed.

Really? Well, that explains why none of my programs do anything!

*wink*



> The error report included the line numbers of the buggy lines, plus a
> correction of the output: I first pasted incorrect error message, then
> corrected that *immediately*. But I just found no way to edit the
> original message, so both that and the correction ended up present. The
> correction with "Sorry, here's the correct message", or words to that
> effect. In the one and only original submission.

Right. A simple, silly error that anyone could have made. We've all made 
similarly embarrassing mistakes.

But you then responded with a public put-down on Brian all out of 
proportion for his sin of *answering your initial post*. And that just 
makes you look obnoxious.


>> I think you need to chill out and stop treating a simple bug report as
>> a personal slight on you.
> 
> I'm sorry but you're again trying to make people believe something that
> you know is false, which is commonly called lying: 

It must be nice to know what other people are thinking.

What am I thinking now?



> it is not the case
> that I have strong feelings or any feelings at all about that bug report
> or any other.

Reading back over this thread, it's obvious how cool, calm and collected 
you are. I can't imagine what I was thinking, that somebody who would say

"Well how f*****g darn patient do they expect me to be?"

has strong feelings over the issue? 


(For the sarcasm impaired, that's sarcasm.)


> But you're starting to annoy me.

I'm truly sorry to hear that.



-- 
Steven