On Apr 9, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
Thinking about this stuff makes me nostalgic for the sloppy happy
days
of Python 2.x
You now have the opportunity to finally unsnarl that mess. It is
not an
insurmountable opportunity.
No, it's just a full time job wink. Now where did I
On approximately 4/10/2009 9:56 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Barry Warsaw:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:19 AM, gl...@divmod.com wrote:
On 02:38 am, ba...@python.org wrote:
So, what I'm really asking is this. Let's say you agree that there
are use cases for accessing a
On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
If one name has to be longer than the other, it should be the bytes
version. Real user code is more likely to want to use the text
version, and hopefully there will be more of that type of code than
implementations using bytes.
I'm not
On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Shouldn't headers always be text?
/me weeps
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Email-SIG mailing list
Email-SIG@python.org
Your options:
Shouldn't this thread move lock stock and .signature to email-sig?
Barry Warsaw writes:
It does seem to make sense to think about headers as text header
names and text header values.
I disagree. IMHO, structured header types should have object values,
and something like
Bill Janssen writes:
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
In that case, we really need the
bytes-in-bytes-out-bytes-in-the-chewy-
center API first, and build things on top of that.
Yep.
Uh, I hate to rain on a parade, but isn't that how we arrived at the
*current* email
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Shouldn't this thread move lock stock and .signature to email-sig?
I'm doing my part :)
Idempotency? I'm not sure what that means in the context of the
email package ... multiplication by zero?wink Do you mean that
.parse().to_wire() should be idempotent? Yes, I
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
My response here is probably OT, but RFC 822 is the only RFC that
talks
about folding by *inserting* whitespace. both RFC 2822 and RFC 5322
say folding is done by inserting CRLF ahead of *existing* whitespace
and unfolding is done by removing
On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
(Fired too fast.)
At 18:39 -0400 04/10/2009, Tony Nelson wrote:
At 17:57 -0400 04/10/2009, Barry Warsaw wrote:
...
So I'm just starting to read RFC 5322 and I'm starting by skimming
over Appendix A (differences between RFC 5322 and 2822).
Oh,
