On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:39 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Given your explanation of what the new 'surrogates' handler does (pass >> rather than reject erroneous surrogates), I think 'surrogates_pass' is >> fine. Thus, I considoer that and 'surrogates_excape' the best proposal >> the best so far and suggest that you make this pair the current status >> quo to be argued against and improved ... or not. > > That's exactly what I want to avoid: more bike-shedding. If this is now > changed, it cannot be possibly be argued against and improved - it would > be final, end of discussion (please!!!). > > So I'm happy to make it "surrogatepass" and "surrogateescape" as > proposed by Walter. I'm sure you didn't really mean the spelling of > "excape" to be taken literally - whether or not you meant the plural > and the underscore literally, I cannot tell. Stephen Turnbull approved > singular, so that's good enough for me.
singular is good. +1 on these names. _______________________________________________ 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
