Martin Potthast <martin.potth...@googlemail.com> added the comment: Why not simply remove the additional check in line 168 and leave the responsibility to check the validity of its input to the unescape function (be it explicitly or, like now, lazily). That way, the code changes are minimal, the existing test covers the current issue, and the function gets more robust.
By the way, I came across this function via Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2087370 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10759> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
