Aahz wrote:
> Second, please follow the advice to put ALL patches on the tracker.
I don't care about top-posting, but I second the Second point. Let's move this
thread to the issue tracker.
Bill
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote:
>
> Ahh ... I see. I should have done a bit more digging to find where the
> standard tests were.
>
> I created a few new tests that could be included in that test suite --
> see the attached file. Do you think that this would be sufficient?
First of all
Ahh ... I see. I should have done a bit more digging to find where the
standard tests were.
I created a few new tests that could be included in that test suite --
see the attached file. Do you think that this would be sufficient?
- Dan
Bill Janssen wrote:
Dan Mahn wrote:
Yes, that was
Dan Mahn wrote:
> Yes, that was a good idea. I found some problems, and attached a new
> version. It looks more complicated than I wanted, but it is a very
> regular repetition, so I hope it is generally readable.
That's great, but I was hoping for more tests in lib/test/test_urllib.py.
Bill
I submitted an explanation of this and my proposed modification as issue
5468.
http://bugs.python.org/issue5468
- Dan
Bill Janssen wrote:
Aahz wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote:
After a harder look, I concluded there was a bit more work to be done,
but still very basic modific
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote:
>
> Any suggestions would be welcome before I try to submit this as a patch.
Just go ahead and submit it now; it's easier to review patches when
they're in the system, and it also makes sure that it won't get lost.
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*>
Yes, that was a good idea. I found some problems, and attached a new
version. It looks more complicated than I wanted, but it is a very
regular repetition, so I hope it is generally readable.
I used "doctest" to include the test scenarios. I was not familiar with
it before, but it seems to
Aahz wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote:
> >
> > After a harder look, I concluded there was a bit more work to be done,
> > but still very basic modifications.
> >
> > Attached is a version of urlencode() which seems to make the most sense
> > to me.
> >
> > I wonder how I could of
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote:
>
> After a harder look, I concluded there was a bit more work to be done,
> but still very basic modifications.
>
> Attached is a version of urlencode() which seems to make the most sense
> to me.
>
> I wonder how I could officially propose at least some o
After a harder look, I concluded there was a bit more work to be done,
but still very basic modifications.
Attached is a version of urlencode() which seems to make the most sense
to me.
I wonder how I could officially propose at least some of these
modifications.
- Dan
Bill Janssen wrot
Bill Janssen wrote:
Bill Janssen wrote:
Dan Mahn wrote:
3) Regarding the following code fragment in urlencode():
k = quote_plus(str(k))
if isinstance(v, str):
v = quote_plus(v)
l.append(k + '=' + v)
Bill Janssen wrote:
> Dan Mahn wrote:
>
> > 3) Regarding the following code fragment in urlencode():
> >
> >k = quote_plus(str(k))
> > if isinstance(v, str):
> >v = quote_plus(v)
> >l.append(k + '=' + v)
> >elif isinstance(v, st
Dan Mahn wrote:
> 3) Regarding the following code fragment in urlencode():
>
>k = quote_plus(str(k))
> if isinstance(v, str):
>v = quote_plus(v)
>l.append(k + '=' + v)
>elif isinstance(v, str):
># is there a reason
Hi. I've been using Py3K successfully for a while now, and have some
questions about urlencode().
1) The docs mention that items sent to urlencode() are quoted using
quote_plus(). However, instances of type "bytes" are not handled like
they are with quote_plus() because urlencode() converts
14 matches
Mail list logo
