MRAB wrote:
> Márcio Faustino wrote:
> > On 11 Abr, 20:06, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> >> I think you are right. Please file a bug report .
> >
> > I will.
> >
> >> IMO this doesn't fix the problem because
> >>
> >> (1) it allows "%%%" which is also incorrect
> >
> > You're r
Márcio Faustino wrote:
> On 11 Abr, 20:06, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> (2) _interpvar_re has already butchered values like "%%(alpha)s" to "%"
>
> Isn't that expected? I mean, one wouldn't write "%%(alpha)s", but
> instead "%%%(alpha)s" or "%(alpha)s" right?
"%%(alpha)s" would mean
Márcio Faustino wrote:
> On 11 Abr, 20:06, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> I think you are right. Please file a bug report .
>
> I will.
>
>> IMO this doesn't fix the problem because
>>
>> (1) it allows "%%%" which is also incorrect
>
> You're right, how about this one "(?
Instead of chec
On 11 Abr, 20:06, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> I think you are right. Please file a bug report .
I will.
> IMO this doesn't fix the problem because
>
> (1) it allows "%%%" which is also incorrect
You're right, how about this one "(? (2) _interpvar_re has already butchered values like
Márcio Faustino wrote:
> Does the SafeConfigParser class correctly detects lone percent signs?
> For example, shouldn't the string "100%%" be accepted as a valid
> value? Executing the code below should only print one error, instead
> it prints 2. (I've tested this with version 2.6.1 on Windows XP
Hi,
Does the SafeConfigParser class correctly detects lone percent signs?
For example, shouldn't the string "100%%" be accepted as a valid
value? Executing the code below should only print one error, instead
it prints 2. (I've tested this with version 2.6.1 on Windows XP.)
It seems the "_badperce
