Author gosella
Recipients eric.araujo, eric.smith, gosella, kisielk, mark.dickinson, mrabarnett, rhettinger
Date 2010-06-25.18:48:20
SpamBayes Score 0.00464008
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1277491704.02.0.89987869926.issue7951@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Well, using negative indexes for fields can be thought as a new feature with all the consequences mentioned before BUT negative indexes for accessing elements from a sequence, IMHO, is something that anyone would expected to work. That's why at first I thought it was a bug and I fill an issue about it.

The code that parses the fields and the indexes is the same, so when I change it to accept negative indexes, it worked for both cases. I'm attaching a patch that checks if a negative index is used in a field and reverts to the old behavior in that case, allowing only negative indexes for accessing sequences ( "{-1}" will raise KeyError because it will be threated as '-1').

Perhaps in this way this issue could be partially fixed.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-25 18:48:26gosellasetrecipients: + gosella, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, eric.smith, kisielk, eric.araujo, mrabarnett
2010-06-25 18:48:24gosellasetmessageid: <1277491704.02.0.89987869926.issue7951@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-06-25 18:48:22gosellalinkissue7951 messages
2010-06-25 18:48:22gosellacreate