Message120344
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
ajaksu2, eric.araujo, ncoghlan, orsenthil |
| Date |
2010年11月03日.20:24:22 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.910124e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1288815864.26.0.3281844062.issue1500504@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Sure, adding tests is a no-brainer.
Regarding the module, I’m a bit reluctant. I see value in providing low-level building blocks (think OS calls) and high-level utilities for regular use, but here it seems that urllib.parse and urischemes are at the same level. I’m not opposed to the functionality itself—I would like to use a class simply named "URI" (and generally get better names, that is RFC names instead of specific inventions), have components normalization and such goodies—but I think the existing module can get fixes and improvements. I fear the confusion that could be caused by having two modules for the same task, unless you want to propose that the new module deprecate urllib.parse.
Senthil, what is your opinion? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年11月03日 20:24:24 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, ncoghlan, orsenthil, ajaksu2 |
| 2010年11月03日 20:24:24 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1288815864.26.0.3281844062.issue1500504@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年11月03日 20:24:23 | eric.araujo | link | issue1500504 messages |
| 2010年11月03日 20:24:22 | eric.araujo | create |
|