Bugs in CPython 3.1.1 [wave.py]

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Alf P. Steinbach:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * Steven D'Aprano:
>>>> Nobody is trying to understate the complexity of writing a large
>>>> application that supports both 2.6 and 3.x, or of taking an existing
>>>> library written for 2.5 and upgrading it to support 3.1. But the
>>>> magnitude of these tasks is no greater (and potentially smaller) than
>>>> supporting (say) 2.3 through 2.5. To describe it as "hopeless" is
>>>> simply mistaken and weakens your credibility.
>>> It seems that people here put a lot of meaning into "hopeless"...
>>>
>> Because they are programmers, so they tend to read your meaning quite
>> literally. Would you have them do anything else?
> 
> When you write "literally" you're referring to choosing *a* meaning that 
> does not make sense in general.
> 
> In some cases that's relevant because to choose a more reasonable 
> meaning may require knowledge that a reader doesn't have, and it's good 
> when that's pointed out, because it can increase the clarity of the text.
> 
> But yes, I would rather have those few people who consistently choose 
> generally meaningless interpretations, and they're just a few people, 
> let that be said, to rather point out some technical errors or e.g. ways 
> that things can be explained so they're more easy to grok.
> 
> 
>>> Would it be better to say that it's "hard" or "very hard" or
>>> "impractical for the novice"?
>>>
>> What would a novice want with writing portable code anyway?
> 
> My point is that the (perhaps to be) book is *not* based on that 
> approach, so I find it difficult to understand the point of your question.
> 
> But treating it as a sort of theoretical question I can think of some 
> reasons, including not having to unlearn, easy availability of tools, 
> and the same reasons as for a professional, increasing the usability of 
> the code.
> 
> But those reasons are all outweighted by the difficulty of doing it.
> 
> 
>>> After all, the bug that this thread is about demonstrated that unit
>>> tests designed for 2.x do not necessarily uncover 3.x incompatibilities.
>>>
>>> Even at the level of Python's own standard library.
>>>
>>> But, regarding reformulations that don't imply untrue things to anyone
>>> (or nearly), I'd like the text on that page to still fit on one page. 
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Modulo the smiley, what on earth is supposed to be funny about the way
>> you waste people's time with trips down semantic ratholes?
> 
> Regarding "waste of time" I would love some more substantial comments, 
> pointing out e.g. technical errors. But so far nearly all comments have 
> been about terminology, how things can be misunderstood by a 
> non-knowledgable reader. To me these comments, while not the kind that I 
> would most prefer, are still useful, while it appears that in your view 
> it is a waste of time and about semantic ratholes  --  but if it is, 
> then you're characterizing-by-association the persons here bringing up 
> those issues, not me.
> 
> Are you sure that that's what you wanted to express?
> 
> 
>> You say something is "hopeless", which can generally be taken to mean
>> that nobody should even bother to try doing it
> 
> Almost so: a novice should not bother trying to do it.
> 
> 
>> , and then retreat into
>> argument when a counter-example is provided.
> 
> I'm sorry but that's meaningless.
> 
> This thread is an example that even with the most extensive effort and 
> the presumably best programmers one doesn't necessarily manage to get 
> 2.x code to work /correctly/ with 3.x  --  even when 2.x compatibility 
> is not required!
> 
> That's the kind of example that matters.
> 
> 
>> Just for once, could you consider admitting you might have been wrong?
> 
> That's what a change means, what this thread that you're replying in 
> means: an admission that my formulation wasn't perceived the way I 
> thought it would be

Oops sorry, wrong thread.

The thread I thought this was in: "Those two controversial 2nd & 3rd paragraphs 
of my ch 1"


> And I thank those people who insisted that I change this.
> 
> But it's very untrue that I'm always right, or that I have some problem 
> admitting to wrongs. For example, this thread is a counter example to 
> your implication. And one needs only one counter example, but there are 
> many. It seems that you're objecting to me being competent, and would 
> rather have me make a lot more errors. Which is a bit silly. However, 
> discussing persons is IMHO generally off-topic here. In technical forums 
> it's what people do when they don't have any good arguments.

Btw., see above. :-)


CHeers,

- Alf