Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Jay McCarthy
Definitely that's one of the things it would do. Thanks for the reminder. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Rodolfo Carvalho wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 16:08, Robby Findler > wrote: > >> Oh, right. Pattern matching on url structs. If we want to keep that >> working (which I think

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Rodolfo Carvalho
Hello, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 16:08, Robby Findler wrote: > Oh, right. Pattern matching on url structs. If we want to keep that > working (which I think we do), then that ties our hands much more. > > I believe there are some other crufty things in net/url (having to do > with encodings?). > >

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Jay McCarthy
string->url and url->string don't have to round trip because url->string uses canonical percent encodings where string->url removes all percent encodings. Jay On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I agree with that, but software and timelines have a way of not > working

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I agree with that, but software and timelines have a way of not working together. :) On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > If the new url stuff were to come out this release, then I wouldn't > mind not fixing that one. FWIW. > > Robby > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Sam T

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Robby Findler
If the new url stuff were to come out this release, then I wouldn't mind not fixing that one. FWIW. Robby On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: >> >> I'll revert the commit and put a new HTTP library on my list to cod

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > > I'll revert the commit and put a new HTTP library on my list to code and > discuss with Eli. I feel like we want to fix the bug that `string->url' and `url->string' don't round-trip properly. Could you store some data in a substructure to

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Jay McCarthy
I seem to recall that this has been on Eli's mind more some time and that he has something rearing to go. I think that is probably a good idea and that this breakage here is a bit too dangerous. I'll revert the commit and put a new HTTP library on my list to code and discuss with Eli. Jay On We

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Robby Findler
Oh, right. Pattern matching on url structs. If we want to keep that working (which I think we do), then that ties our hands much more. I believe there are some other crufty things in net/url (having to do with encodings?). Does it make sense to have a new library that does all of this right from

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Jay McCarthy
I thought about that too since there are few instances where people pattern match on the URL struct. What would be a good name for the new field... url-maybe-query? On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > I don't think we want to change how the current url struct selectors > wor

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #23903: master branch updated

2011-11-23 Thread Robby Findler
I don't think we want to change how the current url struct selectors work when applied to url structs. You could probably get away with changing the url struct if you could provide functions that act the way the old selectors used to work -- does that help? Robby On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Re: [racket-dev] check-syntax (require plot) hangs drracket

2011-11-23 Thread Robby Findler
I'm not seeing that under ubuntu 10.04 using the version of Racket from this morning. Is there possibly something else that would need to be done to see the problem? Robby On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Marijn wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > In the latest git maste