Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl wrote: > > >>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Max M >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Lawrence is right that the escape method doesn't work the way he >>>>>>expects it to. >>>>>> >>>>>>Rewriting a library module simply because a developer is surprised is >>>>>>a *very* bad idea. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Verging on disgust at some >>>>>comments in this thread, yes. But "surprised" is what a lot of users of >>>>>the existing cgi.escape function are going to be when they discover >>>>>their code isn't doing what they thought it was. >>>> >>>>Why should they be surprised? The documentation states clearly what >>>>cgi.escape() does (as does the docstring). >>> >>>Documentation frequently states stupid things. Doesn't mean it should be >>>treated as sacrosanct. >> >>That's not the point. The point is that someone using cgi.escape() will >>hardly be surprised of what it does and doesn't do. > > > And this surprise, or lack of it, is relevant to the argument how, exactly?
Is there *any* branch of this thread that won't end with some snippy remark from you? -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
