philipspencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Yes, it is the same issue. Sorry I didn't see the previous report -- I didn't imagine an issue like this, with such a simple fix, could have been reported back in 2006 without the fix ever having been implemented, so I didn't bother searching back that far!
The fix in that report contains the same one-line fix as I proposed, plus additional changes to ensure that the code won't break if in the future additional changes are made to allow a second possible exit-out-of-the-loop-with-d-being-non-null code path. All that's strictly necessary to solve the current problem is the one line I proposed, but the other proposed changes would make the safer against future potential breakage if the code gets rearranged later. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3115> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
