I got this the other day with lalr.scm. My build got stuck (100% CPU for quite a while). I ended up clearing out all old .go files and trying again and it got past it (didn't even take that long, a few seconds compared to a 15 minute wait).
On 16 March 2012 08:47, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I saw your point. So read-response-body is defined to read the whole > body, and shouldn't return anything when it didn't get all the data. > For this reason, one should use bytevector handler to get the data on one's > own rather than read-response-body. > Well, I just thought read-response-body is the only API to get body, at > least from the manual, I can only get this conclusion. But in fact, the > worth of read-response-body is very limited. It just a simple procedure to > get a simple page or few data. > If possible, I wish the manual can add few words to notice this. > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 16 March 2012 13:54, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > This patch will return any data get-bytevector-n received and throw >> > error >> > when get <eof>. >> > Actually, it's not the same feature in the old version thread >> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-03/msg00116.html >> > The old version is complicated because it catches *any* exception and >> > return >> > the received data within exception. >> > But this new version is an easy one. >> >> Yes, it looks much nicer :-) >> >> > My point is, read-response-body is a low level procedure, so we >> > shouldn't >> > make it complex. But our current doesn't return received data when >> > the received data is less than the content-length. I think it should >> > return >> > it, and let the user determine whether it's an error or continue >> > reading. >> >> So r-r-b is a really a two-liner: >> >> - read response body from port; >> - make sure the complete response has been read. >> >> This combination is the utility of the procedure: it guarentees that >> the data it returns comprises the complete response body. >> >> With your proposed change, that guarentee no longer holds. The caller >> now must perform their own checks on the response data size, making >> your function effectively this: >> >> - read response body data from port. >> >> So what is the utility of calling a procedure to do that over, say, >> reading from the port directly? [pointed out earlier in this thread] > > -- Tristan Colgate-McFarlane ---- "You can get all your daily vitamins from 52 pints of guiness, and a glass of milk"