[Python-Dev] urllib.quote and unquote - Unicode issues

[Matt Giuca]

> There are a lot of quotes around. Including "After the most recent flurry
> of
> discussion I've lost track of what's the right thing to do."
> But I don't talk for other people.
>

OK .. let me compose myself a little. Sorry I went ahead and assumed this
was closed.

It's just frustrating to me that I've now spent a month trying to push this
through, and while it seems everybody has an opinion, nobody seems to have
bothered trying my code. (I've even implemented your suggestions and posted
my feedback, and nobody replied to that). Nobody's been assigned to look at
it and it hasn't been given a priority, even though we all agree it's a bug
(though we disagree on how to fix it).


>
> > There is a bug in Python. I've proposed a working fix, and nobody else
> > has.
>
> Well, you proposed a patch ;-)
> It may fix things, it will break a lot. While this was denied over and over
> again, it's still gonna happen, because the axioms are still not accounting
> for the reality.


Well all you're getting from me is "it works". And all I'm getting from you
is "it might not". Please .. I've been asking for weeks now for someone to
review the patch. I've already spent hours (like ... days worth of hours)
testing this patch against the whole library. I've written reams of reports
on the tracker to try and convince people it works. There isn't any more *I*
can do. If you think it's going to break code, go ahead and try it out.

The claims I am making are based on my experience working with a) Python 2,
b) Python 3 as it stands, c) Python 3 with my patch, and d) Python 3 with
quote/unquote using bytes. In my experience, (c) is the only version of
Python 3 which works properly.

> I made all the changes the community suggested.
>
> I don't think so.
>

?


> > What more needs to be discussed here?
>
> Huh? You feel, the discussion is over? Then why are there still open
> questions? I admit, a lot of discussion is triggered by the assessments
> you're stating in your posts. Don't take it as a personal offense, it's a
> simple observation. There were made a lot of statements and nobody even
> bothered to substantiate them.


If you read the bug tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue3300> all the way
to the beginning, you'll see I use a good many examples, and I also went
through the entire standard library <http://bugs.python.org/msg69591> to try
and substantiate my claims. (Admittedly, I didn't finish investigating the
request module, but that shouldn't prevent the patch from being reviewed).
As I've said all along, yes, it will break code, but then *all solutions
possible* will break code, including leaving it in. Mine *seems* to break
the least existing code. If there is ever a time to break code, Python 3.0
is it.


> A PEP could fix that.
>

I could write a PEP. But as you've read above, I'm concerned this won't get
into Python 3.0, and then we'll be locked into the existing functionality
and it'll never get accepted; hence I'd rather this be resolved as quickly
as possible. If you think it's worth writing a PEP, let's do it.

Apologies again for my antagonistic reply earlier. Not trying to step on
toes, just get stuff done.

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080807/ccb015f1/attachment.htm>