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

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Russ" <uymqlp502 at sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165264641.125857.85980 at 80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >
> >> > Sorry I haven't thought this through 100%
> >>
> >> obviously not.
> >
> > And you didn't like the "tone" of some of my earlier posts?
>
> While Fredrik's reply is a bit short, as is sometimes his habit,
> here are some things that appear to me to not have been thought through
> enough:
> 1. some negative indexes are legal.
> 2. replacing short inline code with a function call on *every* index lookup
> will slow down the interpreter a bit.
> 3. will the same check code work for even all built-in sequences?
> 4. how does index checking fit in with slice checking?
>
> By the way, it is already understood that error messages could be better,
> and I have thought about this one myself.  You are not the first to notice,
> and improvements occasionally get submitted (and later accepted) by people
> with both the knowledge and motivation to do so.  But insulting such people
> is not helpful.

I saw no posts where there OP insulted anybody without being
insulted first.  It is ironic the Mr. Kern was the most consistent
insulter while at the same time accusing the OP of rudeness.

Your own post would have been more helpful (or at least less
devisive) had you left off that last sentence.