(Copied back to the list)
Andrew Clover wrote:
Ian Bicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When this happens, the form can be parsed by ``cgi.FieldStorage``.
Agree with the objections others have posted.
There are many alternative things one might want to do with the body
that don't
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:39 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
By using a tuple or list, you can be sure you don't have a sparse list,
which probably isn't something any system is likely to handle. The
double underscores kind of mark __args__ as a special kind of key, so
it's less
Ian Bicking wrote:
Having thought about it, I think storing a tuple of
(args, kwargs) is the best way to do this, since it's
most explicit. Consumers can deal with args specially,
ignore them, or raise an error, as they see fit --
there are reasons to do each of these. Hiding args
in
At 04:17 PM 10/31/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
One little question: if a dispatcher can never produce one of the kinds of
information (which happens for some of them), should they put in an empty
list/tuple or empty dict, or should they put in None for that item? I'm
currently saying they
Robert Brewer wrote:
Ian Bicking wrote:
Having thought about it, I think storing a tuple of
(args, kwargs) is the best way to do this, since it's
most explicit. Consumers can deal with args specially,
ignore them, or raise an error, as they see fit --
there are reasons to do each of these.
I feel even more +1 on ['wsgi.url_vars'] now. I implemented
as currently discussed in selector and it works out very well.
Selector now supports positional args in path expressions.
I even made some experimental little decorators so that
url_vars can go into method signatures. I don't know that
I
