Why not just show the out-of-range index?

[Russ]

Carsten Haese wrote:

> You may not have meant this to be rude, but it does come off as rude and
> arrogant, and I'll explain to you why: In your first post you stated
> that the feature seems like a no-brainer to you. That implies to the
> reader that you might have the necessary skill to implement the feature
> yourself, hence Robert's suggestion to submit a patch was, in the
> context you gave yourself, neither unreasonable nor silly. I can see how
> your calling a reasonable suggestion by a valuable community member
> "silly" would be construed as rude and arrogant.
>
> Hope this helps,

OK, fair enough. I shouldn't have called his suggestion "silly." When I
replied to him I honestly thought it was, but in retrospect I now see
that it wasn't. My mistake.

By the way, I consider myself a pretty good Python programmer, but I
haven't used C in many years, and I have no desire to ever use it -- or
even see it -- again. That's one of the reasons I use Python in the
first place. (I am fortunate enough to get to choose the language I
use.) I think it's unfortunate that Python is written in C, but I won't
get into that now. (And yes, I am aware of Jython, but I don't care
much for Java either.)