M.-A. Lemburg writes: > You have a point there... even though it breaks the notion > of prepending all parameters with an '&' (ok, except the I've never heard of this notion; I hope I didn't just miss it in the docs! The O& also doesn't require a & in front of the name of the conversion function, you just pass the right value. So there are at least two cases where you *typically* don't use a &. (Other cases in the 1.5.2 API are probably just plain weird if they don't!) Changing it to avoid the extra machinery is the Right Thing; you get to feel good today. ;) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4