Message150437
| Author |
kxroberto |
| Recipients |
adrien-saladin, kxroberto, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2012年01月01日.17:38:48 |
| SpamBayes Score |
9.9287675e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1325439529.8.0.861444843746.issue10839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I think really ill/strange is that kind of item _assignments_ do _add_ multiple.
If msg[field] = xy would just add-first/replace-frist , and only msg.add_xxxx/.append(field, xy) would add multiples that would be clear and understandable/readable.
(The sophisticated check dictionary is unnecessary IMHO, I don't expect the class to be ever smart enough for a full RFC checklist.)
e.g. I remember a bug like
msg[field] = xy
if special_condition:
msg[field] = abc # just wanted a alternative
Never ever expected a double header here!
"=" with adding behavior is absurd IMHO. Certainly doesn't allow readable code. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年01月01日 17:38:49 | kxroberto | set | recipients:
+ kxroberto, r.david.murray, adrien-saladin |
| 2012年01月01日 17:38:49 | kxroberto | set | messageid: <1325439529.8.0.861444843746.issue10839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年01月01日 17:38:49 | kxroberto | link | issue10839 messages |
| 2012年01月01日 17:38:48 | kxroberto | create |
|