discussion I've lost track of what's the right thing to do."
But I don't talk for other people.

OK .. let me compose myself a little. Sorry I went ahead and assumed this was closed.

It's just frustrating to me that I've now spent a month trying to push this through, and while it seems everybody has an opinion, nobody seems to have bothered trying my code. (I've even implemented your suggestions and posted my feedback, and nobody replied to that). Nobody's been assigned to look at it and it hasn't been given a priority, even though we all agree it's a bug (though we disagree on how to fix it).
 

> There is a bug in Python. I've proposed a working fix, and nobody else
> has.

Well, you proposed a patch ;-)
It may fix things, it will break a lot. While this was denied over and over
again, it's still gonna happen, because the axioms are still not accounting
for the reality.

Well all you're getting from me is "it works". And all I'm getting from you is "it might not". Please .. I've been asking for weeks now for someone to review the patch. I've already spent hours (like ... days worth of hours) testing this patch against the whole library. I've written reams of reports on the tracker to try and convince people it works. There isn't any more *I* can do. If you think it's going to break code, go ahead and try it out.

The claims I am making are based on my experience working with a) Python 2, b) Python 3 as it stands, c) Python 3 with my patch, and d) Python 3 with quote/unquote using bytes. In my experience, (c) is the only version of Python 3 which works properly.

> I made all the changes the community suggested.

I don't think so.

?
 
> What more needs to be discussed here?

Huh? You feel, the discussion is over? Then why are there still open
questions? I admit, a lot of discussion is triggered by the assessments
you're stating in your posts. Don't take it as a personal offense, it's a
simple observation. There were made a lot of statements and nobody even
bothered to substantiate them.

If you read the bug tracker all the way to the beginning, you'll see I use a good many examples, and I also went through the entire standard library to try and substantiate my claims. (Admittedly, I didn't finish investigating the request module, but that shouldn't prevent the patch from being reviewed). As I've said all along, yes, it will break code, but then all solutions possible will break code, including leaving it in. Mine *seems* to break the least existing code. If there is ever a time to break code, Python 3.0 is it.
 
A PEP could fix that.

I could write a PEP. But as you've read above, I'm concerned this won't get into Python 3.0, and then we'll be locked into the existing functionality and it'll never get accepted; hence I'd rather this be resolved as quickly as possible. If you think it's worth writing a PEP, let's do it.

Apologies again for my antagonistic reply earlier. Not trying to step on toes, just get stuff done.

Matt
">

(original) (raw)


There are a lot of quotes around. Including "After the most recent flurry of
discussion I've lost track of what's the right thing to do."
But I don't talk for other people.

OK .. let me compose myself a little. Sorry I went ahead and assumed this was closed.

It's just frustrating to me that I've now spent a month trying to push this through, and while it seems everybody has an opinion, nobody seems to have bothered trying my code. (I've even implemented your suggestions and posted my feedback, and nobody replied to that). Nobody's been assigned to look at it and it hasn't been given a priority, even though we all agree it's a bug (though we disagree on how to fix it).
 

> There is a bug in Python. I've proposed a working fix, and nobody else
> has.

Well, you proposed a patch ;-)
It may fix things, it will break a lot. While this was denied over and over
again, it's still gonna happen, because the axioms are still not accounting
for the reality.

Well all you're getting from me is "it works". And all I'm getting from you is "it might not". Please .. I've been asking for weeks now for someone to review the patch. I've already spent hours (like ... days worth of hours) testing this patch against the whole library. I've written reams of reports on the tracker to try and convince people it works. There isn't any more \*I\* can do. If you think it's going to break code, go ahead and try it out.

The claims I am making are based on my experience working with a) Python 2, b) Python 3 as it stands, c) Python 3 with my patch, and d) Python 3 with quote/unquote using bytes. In my experience, (c) is the only version of Python 3 which works properly.

> I made all the changes the community suggested.

I don't think so.

?
 
> What more needs to be discussed here?

Huh? You feel, the discussion is over? Then why are there still open
questions? I admit, a lot of discussion is triggered by the assessments
you're stating in your posts. Don't take it as a personal offense, it's a
simple observation. There were made a lot of statements and nobody even
bothered to substantiate them.

If you read the bug tracker all the way to the beginning, you'll see I use a good many examples, and I also went through the entire standard library to try and substantiate my claims. (Admittedly, I didn't finish investigating the request module, but that shouldn't prevent the patch from being reviewed). As I've said all along, yes, it will break code, but then all solutions possible will break code, including leaving it in. Mine \*seems\* to break the least existing code. If there is ever a time to break code, Python 3.0 is it.
 
A PEP could fix that.

I could write a PEP. But as you've read above, I'm concerned this won't get into Python 3.0, and then we'll be locked into the existing functionality and it'll never get accepted; hence I'd rather this be resolved as quickly as possible. If you think it's worth writing a PEP, let's do it.

Apologies again for my antagonistic reply earlier. Not trying to step on toes, just get stuff done.

Matt