In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden wrote: > 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?
And this is relevant to the argument how, exactly? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
