On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:09 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:
On 2/21/07, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/21/07, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's a bug:
>
> % diff url.scm~ url.scm
> 222c222
> < (list userinfo host (or (string->number port) port))
> ---
> > (list userinfo host (and port (or (string->number
port) port)))
> %
What's (or (string->number port) port) for?
Couldn't it be this?
(list userinfo host (and port (string->number port)))
Yes, right. Sorry, I tend to overlook the obvious.
> Your url-compat defs look ok, but I haven't got the time for
full testing.
> If you think it's safe (and perhaps Kon can say a word or two
about this),
> just check your changes in.
I'd like to confirm one thing.
My idea is to put this code into the url egg,
and let uri egg be removed or replaced to simply (use url).
Is it OK for you guys?
Yes, that would be ok for me. That we have two eggs about url/uri
parsing is annyoing.
Kon?
Just url is fine. I would remove the html: stuff altogether from the
SLIB derived code & place the ftp: stuff (only 1 proc I think) into
its' own file. So only url related code is in url. Should also decide
on namespace style. I kept the urc:/uri: prefixs & added '-' versions
of the symbols. (It was to be a port of SLIB code.) But we only need
one style, I suggest the '-' style.
cheers,
felix
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users