A critique of cgi.escape

Lawrence D'Oliveiro ldo at geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Wed Sep 27 02:39:16 CEST 2006


In message <mailman.673.1159276007.10491.python-list at python.org>, Steve
Holden wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <efate6$ilf$1 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <efaknl$867$2 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <4517e10e$0$13929$edfadb0f at dread15.news.tele.dk>, 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?



More information about the Python-list mailing list