Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> Given your explanation of what the new 'surrogates' handler does (pass >> rather than reject erroneous surrogates), I think 'surrogates_pass' is >> fine. Thus, I considoer that and 'surrogates_excape' the best proposal >> the best so far and suggest that you make this pair the current status >> quo to be argued against and improved ... or not. > > That's exactly what I want to avoid: more bike-shedding. If this is now > changed, it cannot be possibly be argued against and improved - it would > be final, end of discussion (please!!!). > > So I'm happy to make it "surrogatepass" and "surrogateescape" as > proposed by Walter. I'm sure you didn't really mean the spelling of > "excape" to be taken literally - whether or not you meant the plural > and the underscore literally, I cannot tell. Stephen Turnbull approved > singular, so that's good enough for me. Those minor tweaks for consistency with existing names are what I meant by 'improve' (with good arguments) and I approve of them also. +1 on stopping here.
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