[Tutor] Tutor Digest, Vol 82, Issue 54

Mon Dec 13 05:43:31 CET 2010

dont send me mails again. i want to unsubscript

On 12/13/10, tutor-request at python.org <tutor-request at python.org> wrote:
> Send Tutor mailing list submissions to
> 	tutor at python.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	tutor-request at python.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	tutor-owner at python.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tutor digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: role playing game - help needed (David Hutto)
>    2. Re: Code evaluation inside of string fails with __get_item
>       (Tim Johnson)
>    3. Re: role playing game - help needed (Walter Prins)
>    4. Re: role playing game - help needed (David Hutto)
>    5. Re: role playing game - help needed (David Hutto)
>    6. Re: Code evaluation inside of string fails with __get_item
>       (David Hutto)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:42:06 -0500
> From: David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com>
> To: "Steven D'Aprano" <steve at pearwood.info>
> Cc: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] role playing game - help needed
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTi=PTZuKOQFStE73iAOi1EV1+ZvAj0=MB-VV78ue at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
>> wrote:
>>> David Hutto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Lie Ryan <lie.1296 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/07/10 23:37, Robert Sj?blom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been told to use input() if I know that I'll only get integers,
>>>>>> and raw_input() for "everything."
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a bad piece of advice. You should only use input() when you can
>>>>> fully trust whoever doing the input (i.e. you).
>>>>
>>>> Who uses the crap we, as noobies produce? It's pie in the sky
>>>> mentality. We design it because WE want it and WE(individually) use
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Do you want to learn good habits or learn bad habits? I think we've seen
>>> plenty of evidence on this mailing list that you have little interest in
>>> learning good habits, but actively defend your right learn bad habits.
>>
>> You define a good habit as making the code impossible for someone just
>> learning to use,
>> and you call my habits bad.. I recall you making a habit of being an
>> asshole(pystats should ring a bell, thanks for giving me the credit
>> for inspiration...bitch)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of people who do the same. They're harmless and even
>>> pathetically amusing as newbies,
>
> Said the pathetically amusing pro.
>
>  and then they get a job working as a
>>> professional programmer, and end up writing crappy, bug-addled code
>>> filled
>
> As your ignorant ass did when you first started(maybe no email
> evidence, but just an educated guess)
>
>>> with the sort of n00b errors that we've been warning about. Bug-addled
>>> code
>>> with *real* consequences.
>>
>> Yeah, we call that YOUR mistakes being pointed out later in life due
>> to experience.
>> 20/20 hindsight is great ain't it poindexter?
>>
>>>
>>> Command injection bugs are hugely common in the real world. At least four
>>> of
>>> the 25 most common security bugs in *professional* software are in my
>>> opinion varieties of the command injection flaw, and one of those is the
>>> SECOND most common flaw:
>>>
>>> SQL injection attack #2 most common
>>> Unrestricted upload of dangerous files #8 most common
>>> OS command injection #9 most common
>>> PHP file inclusion attack #13 most common
>>
>> Injection is only relevant in non-personal code.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
>>>
>>> OS command injection is *exactly* the sort of thing we're warning about.
>>>
>>> Feel free to continue learning bad habits, but please stop trying to
>>> encourage others to do the same.
>>
>> I didn't encourage a bad habit, I encouraged development of a problem
>> defined by the client and a solution developed byu the programmer.
>>
>> The only bad habit around here, is your condescending nature.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tutor maillist ?- ?Tutor at python.org
>>> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
>>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
>>>
>>
>
>
> And if you do look at the emails, yes i was hostile at the
> beginning(I've learned to ignore bitches like you), because of
> attitudes like yours. And if you also look, everytime I tried to help
> point a fellow noob in the right direction, you came in and said how
> ignorant I was for trying to help(thanks alot, from them and me).
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:42:49 -0900
> From: Tim Johnson <tim at johnsons-web.com>
> To: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Code evaluation inside of string fails with
> 	__get_item
> Message-ID: <20101212194249.GI3380 at johnsons-web.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> * Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> [101211 17:20]:
>> Tim Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>   I've never had the occasion to use assert() or any other
>>>   python - shooting tools, any thoughts on that?
>>
>>
>> Assertions are a great tool, but never ever, under pain of great pain,
>> use assert for testing user input or function arguments.
> <.....>
>>
>> Who makes that choice? You, or the caller? If the caller, then any
>> errors that occur are not internal state, and you shouldn't use assert.
>> If you, then it's an internal detail and you can use assert.
>
>   Steven: Thanks very much for taking so much time and effort to
>   answer my question. I will file this writing for future and
>   ongoing reference.
>
>   BTW: I was able to solve the problem. Essentially a clone of
>   Eval() was being called and probably clobbering the stack frame.
>   It was a tedious process of tracking thru known and likely code
>   dependencies and insert debugging stubs. I've written my own
>   debugging macros using vimscript and from your input I would guess
>   that assert would have just clouded the process.
>
>   thanks again.
> --
> Tim
> tim at johnsons-web.com or akwebsoft.com
> http://www.akwebsoft.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:44:14 +0000
> From: Walter Prins <wprins at gmail.com>
> To: David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com>
> Cc: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] role playing game - help needed
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikDsO-Z8q0rh3VYzX-dQqUnK1T9wQ9tpytG-Y7R at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 12 December 2010 19:16, David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  I recall you making a habit of being an
>> asshole(pystats should ring a bell, thanks for giving me the credit
>> for inspiration...bitch)
>>
>
> Rudeness objection.  Ad-hominem objection.
>
> Come on, this is not kindergarten.  We all have our foibles, and although
> I'd agree the tone around here occasionally leaves something to be desired,
> you just lower yourself to the same level and make matters worse if you
> resort to this type of name-calling.   Let's stick to objectively (as far as
> possible) critiquing and considering the points raised.
>
> Walter
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20101212/b842f6f8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:45:29 -0500
> From: David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com>
> To: Walter Prins <wprins at gmail.com>
> Cc: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] role playing game - help needed
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTi=+1v4T9Q6GYZu+RsTqsyG88LkL9V8+JPmAtVSv at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Walter Prins <wprins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 December 2010 19:16, David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?I recall you making a habit of being an
>>> asshole(pystats should ring a bell, thanks for giving me the credit
>>> for inspiration...bitch)
>>
>> Rudeness objection.? Ad-hominem objection.
>>
>> Come on, this is not kindergarten.? We all have our foibles, and although
>> I'd agree the tone around here occasionally leaves something to be
>> desired,
>> you just lower yourself to the same level and make matters worse if you
>> resort to this type of name-calling.?? Let's stick to objectively (as far
>> as
>> possible) critiquing and considering the points raised.
>>
>> Walter
>>
>  He started it!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:45:46 -0500
> From: David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com>
> To: Walter Prins <wprins at gmail.com>
> Cc: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] role playing game - help needed
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikA__jta8D-icYQ54TQcUuuF6V_KVppsQOHrU78 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:45 PM, David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Walter Prins <wprins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 December 2010 19:16, David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?I recall you making a habit of being an
>>>> asshole(pystats should ring a bell, thanks for giving me the credit
>>>> for inspiration...bitch)
>>>
>>> Rudeness objection.? Ad-hominem objection.
>>>
>>> Come on, this is not kindergarten.? We all have our foibles, and although
>>> I'd agree the tone around here occasionally leaves something to be
>>> desired,
>>> you just lower yourself to the same level and make matters worse if you
>>> resort to this type of name-calling.?? Let's stick to objectively (as far
>>> as
>>> possible) critiquing and considering the points raised.
>>>
>>> Walter
>>>
>> ?He started it Mama!
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:51:28 -0500
> From: David Hutto <smokefloat at gmail.com>
> To: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Code evaluation inside of string fails with
> 	__get_item
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTin_9A0+RdQjs13QsCb530iXPJBhu-XkbVumwWGi at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Tim Johnson <tim at johnsons-web.com> wrote:
>> * Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> [101211 17:20]:
>>> Tim Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> ? I've never had the occasion to use assert() or any other
>>>> ? python - shooting tools, any thoughts on that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Assertions are a great tool, but never ever, under pain of great pain,
>>> use assert for testing user input or function arguments.
>> <.....>
>>>
>>> Who makes that choice? You, or the caller? If the caller, then any
>>> errors that occur are not internal state, and you shouldn't use assert.
>>> If you, then it's an internal detail and you can use assert.
>>
>> ?Steven: Thanks very much for taking so much time and effort to
>> ?answer my question. I will file this writing for future and
>> ?ongoing reference.
>>
>> ?BTW: I was able to solve the problem. Essentially a clone of
>> ?Eval() was being called and probably clobbering the stack frame.
>> ?It was a tedious process of tracking thru known and likely code
>> ?dependencies and insert debugging stubs. I've written my own
>> ?debugging macros using vimscript and from your input I would guess
>> ?that assert would have just clouded the process.
>>
>> ?thanks again.
>> --
>> Tim
>> tim at johnsons-web.com or akwebsoft.com
>> http://www.akwebsoft.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tutor maillist ?- ?Tutor at python.org
>> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
>>
>  Thanks steven, you're the best.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
>
>
> End of Tutor Digest, Vol 82, Issue 54
> *************************************
>