Mathias Panzenböck added the comment:
On 11/18/2012 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
> A couple of comments:
> - the patch needs a test (and docs too)
Will do (when I have time).
> - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we
> forbid it instead?
> - I think it would be nice to reference the RFC number somewhere
> - not sure why you raise IOError on a bad URL; I would say ValueError is the
> right exception here
I did that because that's what the old URLopener code does (ignoring POSTed
data and raising an
IOError). The comment is actually a 1:1 copy of the old code.
> +1 on the general idea, by the way.
> nosy: +pitrou
> Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
Python-bugs-list mailing list