A critique of cgi.escape

[Steve Holden]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <efate6$ilf$1 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:
> 
> 
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>>In message <efaknl$867$2 at news.albasani.net>, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <4517e10e$0$13929$edfadb0f at dread15.news.tele.dk>, Max M
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lawrence is right that the escape method doesn't work the way he
>>>>>>expects it to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rewriting a library module simply because a developer is surprised is
>>>>>>a *very* bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Verging on disgust at some
>>>>>comments in this thread, yes. But "surprised" is what a lot of users of
>>>>>the existing cgi.escape function are going to be when they discover
>>>>>their code isn't doing what they thought it was.
>>>>
>>>>Why should they be surprised? The documentation states clearly what
>>>>cgi.escape() does (as does the docstring).
>>>
>>>Documentation frequently states stupid things. Doesn't mean it should be
>>>treated as sacrosanct.
>>
>>That's not the point. The point is that someone using cgi.escape() will
>>hardly be surprised of what it does and doesn't do.
> 
> 
> And this surprise, or lack of it, is relevant to the argument how, exactly?

Is there *any* branch of this thread that won't end with some snippy 
remark from you?
-- 
Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd          http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb       http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings     http://del.icio.us/steve.holden