Le 10/06/2011 20:27, R. David Murray a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:00:32 +0200, <mer...@netwok.org> wrote:
> The problems there arise from C code calling (or, rather, not calling)
> methods on the subclass. But in email headers act *just like* strings,
> but they have *extra* methods. So there should be no problem. Anything
> that doesn't know about the extra methods will treat the header just
> like a string, which is exactly what we want for backward compatibility
> reasons.
Good.
> The one place where this might bite us is in the proposed support for +=
> and -=. I haven't tested that yet, and if it does work I'm not sure
> that there won't be obscure corners in which will turn out to be broken.
I don’t know either.
>> The second cent is about naming. Does a Mailbox represent an email
>> address? The confusion with mailbox.Mailbox would be a problem.
> Well, that is an issue. I'm not entirely happy about the name, but I
> haven't thought of a better one. The problem is that we have to deal
> both with a full 'mailbox' and the 'addr-spec' subpart, and I don't know
> of *any* other name (other than 'addr-spec') for the addr-spec part.
> (Well, 'address', but you can see the problem with using that for both
> meanings...) Perhaps it would be better to use that (or rather
> addr_spec), and use 'address' for the address-with-display-name
> ('mailbox').
Yep, +1 for using addr_spec for some format defined in the RFCs, and
address for the higher-level full address more familiar to human.
> Good point. rfc822parser is completely distinct from 'parser', which
> probably won't get deprecated. On the other hand, once I add RFC2047
> support to it, perhaps I should rename it rfcparser (or, at least at
> first, _rfcparser). Or perhaps _headerparser, though it doesn't
> contain *all* of the header parsing machinery.
After reading your blog post and this email, I still can’t say whether
this parser module deals with headers only or with full messages. If
it’s the former, definite +1 to _headerparser; if it’s the latter, then
_rfcparser or something else would be okay.
Regards
_______________________________________________
Email-SIG mailing list
Email-SIG@python.org
Your options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
