On Mar 11, 12:26 pm, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before I submit a bug, I'll give it a try to find out if it > does support explicit specification of proxys or not.
Sounds good. If it does, then I think the whole paragraph (from "The urlopeen() function does not support explicit proxy ..." to "...subclass such as FancyURLopener.") should just be removed. Looking at the source, there are some slight oddities: a plain urlopen() caches the URLopener instance it creates (in a module-level global) and uses this cached instance in future calls to urlopen or urlretrieve. If proxies are specified then it doesn't do the caching. I don't *think* this really affects usage, except that there are presumably some inefficiencies involved in multiple uses of urlopen with explicitly specified proxies, and those inefficiencies can be overcome by using URLopener or FancyURLopener directly instead. And it doesn't make a lot of sense that urlopen accepts proxies, but urlretrieve does not. But that's a different issue... Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
