> > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
>
> I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
filenames for "opening" them and doing IO on tehm but one major
headache is the extensibility: the scheme part, especially. Check out
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html for the latest list. Each
scheme carries with it own semantics for how the URL should be
understood and which methods can be applied on it. So URLs are not
literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
may be too simplistic.
> > if there's any good reason to treat a URL as more than
> > just a string
>
> And that is what's illuminating, imho.
>
>
> --
> John Porter
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
