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? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
