> I do not think quoting the Zen of Python helps anything.

Instead of practicality-beats-purity, the better aphorism is perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good.

> The Code of Conduct which governs comments here requests
> that we be considerate and respective

The term sanity check was used in normal technical sense.  It is a technical description of a kind of guard that is sometimes placed in code.  It isn't a judgment about a user or their code. 

In issue 30293, the StackOverflow OP constructed a hypothetical example that explicitly asked the machine to compute a large object using ``1 << 500000000``.  The OP was merely curious about why the optimized code was so much faster than the unoptimized code. 

On the tracker, this gave rise to question about whether sanity checks should be added to the peephole optimizer.  Apparently, the use of the word sanity is offensive to you and hence the reference to the code-of-conduct.  Though I believe this is a profound misreading of my words and my intent, I apologize if you were offended.

Even though I'm a subject-matter-expert in the area, after the code-of-conduct reference, I no longer feel comfortable or safe in participating further this discussion, so I am bowing out.

To move these issues to resolution, please be clear about what is being asked for.  If you don't want the issue re-opened, please close it.  If you want the peephole optimizer to be disabled because it is interfering with your work, please say so -- we can take it out and give up whatever benefits it offering to other users.  If you want some specific guards to be added, please say so.

My opinion is that this difficult to do in the general case and that it is difficult to decide what the desirable behavior should be for the uncommon cases.  ISTM that constant folding is already too complex and would benefit from benefit from simplification rather than growing additional special cases.  That said, your opinion may differ from mine, and it is just as valid.