Mathias Panzenböck added the comment: On 11/18/2012 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > A couple of comments: > > - the patch needs a test (and docs too)
Will do (when I have time). > - are you sure ignoring POSTed data is the right thing to do? Shouldn't we > forbid it instead? > - I think it would be nice to reference the RFC number somewhere > - not sure why you raise IOError on a bad URL; I would say ValueError is the > right exception here > I did that because that's what the old URLopener code does (ignoring POSTed data and raising an IOError). The comment is actually a 1:1 copy of the old code. > +1 on the general idea, by the way. > > ---------- > nosy: +pitrou > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue16423> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16423> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
