[Python-Dev] Re: python/dist/src/Lib rfc822.py,1.78,1.79

2005-02-08 Thread Fredrik Lundh 

 @@ -399,9 +393,8 @@
 del self[name] # Won't fail if it doesn't exist
 self.dict[name.lower()] = value
 text = name + :  + value
 -lines = text.split(\n)
 -for line in lines:
 -self.headers.append(line + \n)
 +self.headers.extend(text.splitlines(True))
 +self.headers.append('\n')

 and you're 100% sure that the change in how things are stored
 in headers won't affect any existing code?

 (the docstring says that headers contain a list of lines, which is no
 longer true)

and the module documentation says:

Each line contains a trailing newline. The blank line terminating
the headers is not contained in the list.

which is no longer true (unless I'm missing something here)

/F 



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: python/dist/src/Lib rfc822.py,1.78,1.79

2005-02-08 Thread Guido van Rossum 
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:10:49 +0100, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  @@ -399,9 +393,8 @@
  del self[name] # Won't fail if it doesn't exist
  self.dict[name.lower()] = value
  text = name + :  + value
  -lines = text.split(\n)
  -for line in lines:
  -self.headers.append(line + \n)
  +self.headers.extend(text.splitlines(True))
  +self.headers.append('\n')
 
  and you're 100% sure that the change in how things are stored
  in headers won't affect any existing code?
 
  (the docstring says that headers contain a list of lines, which is no
  longer true)
 
 and the module documentation says:
 
 Each line contains a trailing newline. The blank line terminating
 the headers is not contained in the list.
 
 which is no longer true (unless I'm missing something here)

This would have been caught if there was a unit test validating what
the documentation says. Why aren't there unit tests for this code? I
think we need to raise the bar for wholistic improvements to a
module: first write a unit test if there isn't already one (and if
there is one, make sure that it tests all documented behavior), *then*
refactor. Yes, this would be less fun. It's not supposed to be fun.
It's supposed to avoid breaking code.

Raymond, please roll back that change until this is taken care of.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: python/dist/src/Lib rfc822.py,1.78,1.79

2005-02-08 Thread Barry Warsaw 
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:

 This would have been caught if there was a unit test validating what
 the documentation says. Why aren't there unit tests for this code? I
 think we need to raise the bar for wholistic improvements to a
 module: first write a unit test if there isn't already one (and if
 there is one, make sure that it tests all documented behavior), *then*
 refactor. Yes, this would be less fun. It's not supposed to be fun.
 It's supposed to avoid breaking code.

+1.  This module is used in so many place, you really have to take the
documented interface seriously (not that you shouldn't otherwise, of
course).  I suspect even the undocumented current semantics are relied
on in many place.

-Barry



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com