Yes, that was a good idea. I found some problems, and attached a new version. It looks more complicated than I wanted, but it is a very regular repetition, so I hope it is generally readable. I used "doctest" to include the test scenarios. I was not familiar with it before, but it seems to work quite well. The main snag I hit was that I had to jazz around with the escape sequences (backslashes) in order to get the doc string to go in properly. That is, the lines in the string are not the lines I typed at the command prompt, as Python is interpreting the escapes in the strings when the file is imported. In an effort to make fewer tests, the lines of the test strings grew pretty long. I'm not sure if I should try to cut the lengths down or not. Any suggestions would be welcome before I try to submit this as a patch. - Dan Bill Janssen wrote: > Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009, Dan Mahn wrote: >> >>> After a harder look, I concluded there was a bit more work to be done, >>> but still very basic modifications. >>> >>> Attached is a version of urlencode() which seems to make the most sense >>> to me. >>> >>> I wonder how I could officially propose at least some of these >>> modifications. >>> >> Submit a patch to bugs.python.org >> > > And it would help if it included a lot of test cases. > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: new_urlencode.py URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20090309/7e746b0b/attachment.txt>
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