Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Anyway, (if I'm right,) this makes my points that a) there are false > positives, and b) we should have separate issues for each actual problem. Sorry Eric, I failed to clarify my comment: you are absolutely right in your analysis. I was trying to backtrack what the tool is thinking and how that code could result in an initialized read based only on static analysis. Your analysis is right and these are indeed false positives. Apologies for the confusion :) ---------- nosy: -414039482 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue46280> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
