Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Max M
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence is right that the escape method doesn't work the way he
>>>>>> expects it to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rewriting a library module simply because a developer is surprised is
>>>>>> a *very* bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Verging on disgust at some
>>>>> comments in this thread, yes. But "surprised" is what a lot of users of
^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> the existing cgi.escape function are going to be when they discover
>>>>> their code isn't doing what they thought it was.
>>>>
>>>> Why should they be surprised? The documentation states clearly what
>>>> cgi.escape() does (as does the docstring).
>>>
>>> Documentation frequently states stupid things. Doesn't mean it should be
>>> treated as sacrosanct.
>>
>> That's not the point. The point is that someone using cgi.escape() will
>> hardly be surprised of what it does and doesn't do.
>
> And this surprise, or lack of it, is relevant to the argument how, exactly?
Which argument? You said users were going to be surprised, I told you why they
aren't.
Georg
(Okay, this is my last posting to this thread)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
