Message170194
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
cvrebert, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, flox, hac.man, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, rhettinger, thinred, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年09月10日.14:56:35 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1347288996.29.0.298538184159.issue13212@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I don't think it should be called "strict" though, as that would imply that we comply with RFC 4627 strictly
> (which is not true without passing allow_nan=False for dump() or passing a parse_constant function for load())
What if the strict mode implied both of these things?
FWIW, I’m +1 for a doc section about how to achieve strict mode with special arguments and callbacks (if the recent doc patch does not already have that), and +0 on adding it to the code itself. |
|