On 4/10/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> > Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> think it should treat all 2xx responses as success. Callers can
> >> then still check the response code themselves if they need to.
> >
> > The same I think. If nobody has a
Facundo Batista wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> ...
>
>> think it should treat all 2xx responses as success. Callers can
>> then still check the response code themselves if they need to.
>
> The same I think. If nobody has a conflic with this decission, I'll fix
> this.
Nobody raised any object
Aahz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007, Facundo Batista wrote:
>> Sorry, this was an error. I thought "you" as in plural (in spanish
>> there're two different words for third person of plural and singular),
>> and wrote it as is; now, re-reading the parragraph, it's confusing.
>>
>> So, you-people-in-t
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007, Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> Sorry, this was an error. I thought "you" as in plural (in spanish
> there're two different words for third person of plural and singular),
> and wrote it as is; now, re-reading the parragraph, it's confusing.
>
> So, you-people-in-the-list, do you
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Who am I to judge whether a fix will break much code? Personally, I
Sorry, this was an error. I thought "you" as in plural (in spanish
there're two different words for third person of plural and singular),
and wrote it as is; now, re-reading the parragraph, it's confusin
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:14:35PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> Oleg Broytmann schrieb:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:12:06PM +, Facundo Batista wrote:
> >> (didn't know about "annotate").
> >
> >It is also known under the name "blame"! ;)
>
> Or "praise", depending on your mood :-)
Oleg Broytmann schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:12:06PM +, Facundo Batista wrote:
>> (didn't know about "annotate").
>
>It is also known under the name "blame"! ;)
Or "praise", depending on your mood :-)
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mail
> Right now, it's a bug. Do you think it's safe to fix this or will break
> much code?
Who am I to judge whether a fix will break much code? Personally, I
think it should treat all 2xx responses as success. Callers can
then still check the response code themselves if they need to.
Regards,
Marti
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:12:06PM +, Facundo Batista wrote:
> (didn't know about "annotate").
It is also known under the name "blame"! ;)
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETUR
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Why only 200 and 206?
> This kind of question can often be answered through the revision
> history. If you do 'svn annotate', you see that the line testing
> ...
> So it seems that it only tests for 200 and 206 because the experiments
> never produced a need for anythin
> Why only 200 and 206?
This kind of question can often be answered through the revision
history. If you do 'svn annotate', you see that the line testing
for 206 was last changed in r36262. Comparing that to the
previous revision, you see that it before said
if r.status == 200:
and that am
urllib2.py, after receiving an HTTP response, decides if it was an error
and raises an Exception, or it just returns the info.
For example, you make ``urllib2.urlopen("http://www.google.com";)``. If
you receive 200, it's ok; if you receive 500, you get an exception
raised.
How it decides? Functio
12 matches
Mail list logo
