Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > It /does/ break backwards compatibility, but it seems that previous > logic was incorrect (based on my upcoming checking for consistency > between RFCs). As such, I'm not sure that it should be fixed < 3.5. > Thoughts?
Actually, the logic seems to be correct according to RFC 1808 (which the variable names in the tests seem to hint at, as well). I think it's fine to upgrade the semantics to newer RFCs, but we should only do it in 3.5 indeed. ---------- stage: needs patch -> patch review versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22118> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
