A critique of cgi.escape

[Georg Brandl]

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?

Which argument? You said users were going to be surprised, I told you why they
aren't.

Georg

(Okay, this is my last posting to this thread)