A critique of cgi.escape
jon+usenet at unequivocal.co.uk
Mon Sep 25 17:13:30 CEST 2006
In article <4517eecf$0$14036$edfadb0f at dread15.news.tele.dk>, Max M wrote:
> Oh ... because you cannot see a use case for that *documented*
> behaviour, it must certainly be wrong?
No, but if nobody else can find one either, that's a clue that maybe
it's safe to change.
Here's a point for you - the documentation for cgi.escape says that
the characters "&", "<" and ">" are converted, but not what they are
converted to. Even by your own argument, therefore, code is not
entitled to rely on the output of cgi.escape being any particular
> This funktion which is correct by current documentation will be broken
> by you change.
> def hasSomeWord(someword):
> import urllib
> f = urllib.open('http://www.example.com/cgi_escaped_content')
> content = f.read()
> return '"%s"' % someword in content:
That function is broken already, no change required.
I find it amazing that you cannot understand this.
More information about the Python-list