Guido van Rossum wrote:
> IIRC I did it this way because the RFC about parsing urls specifically
> prescribed it had to be done this way.
That was true as of RFC 1808 (1995-1998), although the grammar actually
allowed for a more generic interpretation.
Such an interpretation was suggested in RF
On 11/22/05, Paul Jimenez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is my assertion that urlparse is currently broken. Specifically, I
> think that urlparse breaks an abstraction boundary with ill effect.
IIRC I did it this way because the RFC about parsing urls specifically
prescribed it had to be done
Hi Noam,
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 09:04:25PM +0200, Noam Raphael wrote:
> No, I meant real programming examples. My theory is that most
> user-defined classes have a "value", and those that don't are related
> to I/O, in some sort of a broad definition of the term. I may be
> wrong, so I ask for co
On 11/27/05, Samuele Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, this still belongs to comp.lang.python.
...
> not if you think python-dev is a forum for such discussions
> on OO thinking vs other paradigms.
Perhaps my style made it look like a discussion on OO thinking vs
other paradigms, but my c
On 11/27/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noam Raphael wrote:
> > I would greatly appreciate repliers that find a tiny bit of reason in
> > what I said (even if they don't agree), and not deny it all as a
> > complete load of rubbish.
>
> I don't understand what your message is
