Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > Antoine: I don't think the point of this code is to come up with a > unit (or other) test for the behavior, but to try to determine > empirically whether or not this error is likely to be an issue in > naive production code (whether it is existing 3.x code or stuff ported > from Python2). Thus the mention of "cheating" (doing things production > code would not be doing). > > The answer so far appears to be "no", which is good.
I find this a bit lacking. Production code is used in all kinds of settings that we didn't simulate here. Besides, a very sporadic bug is no better than an easily reproduced one. The tracker already has its share of people pointing at weird sporadic errors in their log files. > And the answer to that is thus probably no as well, since code likely > to run into the error is also likely to need locking around the dict > in question *anyway*. Depends on the application really. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14417> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
