In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fredrik >> Lundh wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>>> Georg Brandl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A function is broken if its implementation doesn't match the >>>>>> documentation. >>>>> >>>>> or if it doesn't match the designer's intent. cgi.escape is old >>>>> enough that we would have noticed that, by now... >>>> >>>> _We_ certainly have noticed it. >>> >>> you're not the designer... >> >> I don't have to be. Whoever the designer was, they had not properly >> thought through the uses of this function. That's quite obvious already, >> to anybody who works with HTML a lot. So the function is broken and needs >> to be fixed. >> >> If you're worried about changing the semantics of a function that keeps >> the same "cgi.escape" name, then fine. We delete the existing function >> and add a new, properly-designed one. _That_ will be a wake-up call to >> all the users of the existing function to fix their code. > > What about the users who don't need to "fix" their code since it's working > fine and flawlessly with the current cgi.escape?
They're just lucky. I guess, that the bugs haven't bitten them--yet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list