[Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] Proposed addtion to urllib.parse in 3.1 (and urlparse in 2.7) (original) (raw)
Steven D'Aprano steve at pearwood.info
Mon Apr 20 01:03:28 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] Proposed addtion to urllib.parse in 3.1 (and urlparse in 2.7)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] Proposed addtion to urllib.parse in 3.1 (and urlparse in 2.7)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:26:59 am Bill Janssen wrote:
Mart Sõmermaa <mrts.pydev at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > > That said, I'm starting to wonder if an even better option may be > > to just drop the kwargs support from the function and require > > people to always supply a parameters dictionary. That would > > simplify the signature to the quite straightforward: > > > > def addqueryparams(url, params, allowdups=True, sep='&')
Or even better, stop trying to use a mapping, and just make the "params" value a list of (name, value) pairs. That way you can stop fiddling around with "allowdups" and just get rid of it.
Surely it should support any mapping? That's what I do in my own code. People will use regular dicts for convenience when they don't care about order or duplicates, and (name,value) pairs, or an OrderedDict, when they do.
I suppose you could force people to write params.items() if params is a dict, but it seems wrong to force an order on input data when it doesn't require one.
-- Steven D'Aprano
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] Proposed addtion to urllib.parse in 3.1 (and urlparse in 2.7)
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-ideas] Proposed addtion to urllib.parse in 3.1 (and urlparse in 2.7)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]