Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
@ryanmhoffman Agreed. My variable scheme for this isn't the best but "for noun in nouns" is easy to understand.
-
@ryanmhoffman
Common != correct
I only mention because ive done exactly what OP did and its an annoying bug to find but incredibly easy to avoid -
Golang way it. For short usage variables use one/two letters names. So it would be:
for _, i := range items {
i.do()
}
Or pythonic:
for i in items:
i.do() -
May I ask what language you are using?
Python seems to (rather strangely) handle this just fine. -
@TheCapeGreek how that could be? The items from the loop should be local scope, when items in 'in items' were already assigned global scope
-
@afrometal It does make little sense I agree. But fixing that stopped crippling our server and subsequently all the other sites we host.
Related Rants

I wrote this code about 3 years ago.
I guess we all had to start somewhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Typos kill, kids! And deploying to production.
Instead of "for item in items" in my script, I accidentally did "for items in items". Thus, an exponential loop has been entering things into the database for the past few hours before I found the place to fix it.
By the way, this runs on cron every minute. So there are processes still running exponentially right now, possibly 180+.
Yeah, I'm setting up a a test server instead now.
rant
typo
test in prod
noob