I agree.
On Dec 29, 7:29 am, snapy666 <[email protected]> wrote: > It doesn't break backwards compatibility, because it *should not* work > the way it did. > > @massimo: I think a SyntaxError should not be used for a case like > this. See that the syntax is correct and the passed values not, a > ValueError or the like shall be used. > > On 29 Dez., 11:59, Kenneth Lundström <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I might be completly wrong but I think the way URL was used by Maurice > > was wrong, it should not have worked, but thanks to a bug in URL it > > worked the way Maurice wanted. > > > So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Did it break backwards > > compatibility. > > > If your are using a bug and somebody repairs that bug your application > > stops working. > > > Kenneth > > > 2010/12/29 Kenneth Lundstr m <[email protected]>: > > > >> If I remember correctly there was something about this on the list. > > > >> I think you use the URL the wrong way and until version 1.83.2 the helper > > >> worked wrongly. In your case it "worked" but it has been corrected and it > > >> doesn t work anymore. > > > Hm. Isn't that technically a case of breaking backwards compatibility? > >
