My Python annoyances

[Ben Collver]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> Three days after you posted, 'gagenellina' explained that he thought your 
> complaint was invalid.
> "py> -531560245 & 0xffffffff
> 3763407051L
> 
> It's the same number (actually, the same bit pattern). ..."
> 
> A few weeks later, noticing that you had not challenged his explanation, I 
> closed after changing the Resolution box to Invalid.  THAT WAS MY COMMENT.
> 
> A month later, I notice that you still have not directly challenged G's 
> claim of invalidity.  Instead, you ignored it and simply repeated your 
> claim here.  WHO IS IGNORING WHO?
> ...
> Real bug reports are quite welcome, as any honest person could determine by 
> looking thru the tracker.

Hi Terry,

I understand and agree that the number was the same bit pattern.  I 
don't remember being asked to challenge this.  I must have missed the 
status change notification.

I do wonder whether the diagnosis is accurate: is the sparc64 port 
actually using an unsigned int where the i386 port is using a signed int?

Either way, I don't see how it reflects on the validity of the report. 
I reported that the resulting numbers were different.  To me that seems 
a trap for the unwary.

All I saw was a comment on what might cause my problem, and then I saw 
that the problem report was closed.  Now I am told that I didn't even 
file a real bug report.  I don't know whether to take that as "this is a 
trivial problem not worth reporting" or "this is a poorly filed bug report".

I am an honest person, honestly!

Ben