> I find stuff like > >>> from email.Utils import parseaddr > much harder to read than the proper > >>> from email.Utils import parseaddr > http://python.org/sf/531205 > > Even worse is > http://<host>:<port>/<path>?<searchpart> > versus something like > scheme>://<authority><path>?<query> >(both quoted from http://python.org/sf/548176) > > SourceForge is designed (intentionally, I am sure) > to accept and properly display the latter > and not require chicken-scratch input. Actually, this is almost certainly the result of a SF glitch (from around the start of the year, IIRC). At that time, all SF trackers (comments, summary, etc) had '<' converted to < (etc). There's no way to edit the existing comments, so the trackers are permanently stuck like that. The SF people themselves indicated that they would not be able to fix any, except manually, and that would only be done where there was a real need (I can't think of any example of that). You'll find examples of this in lots of project trackers that are suitably old. Python was probably hit harder than some, since the '>' character is probably reasonably common in comments. =Tony.Meyer
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