Any word on the review process for this?
For now I have been using it in my projects by just putting it in
std/net on its own.
But I'd obviously like to see it in the standard library some
down, as its URI parsing is very valuable. :)
On Friday, November 09, 2012 01:16:54 Mike van Dongen wrote:
> Then I shall make it a struct. But is the following acceptable in
> phobos?
>
> On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 15:10:18 UTC, Mike van Dongen
>
> wrote:
> > I agree with Jens Mueller on the fact that URI should be a
> > struct instead
On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 23:51:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, November 09, 2012 00:42:42 jerro wrote:
> After trying your solution I found out I was calling
> indexOf(string, char) which apparently is different than
> indexOf(string, string) as I now no longer have that error.
On Friday, November 09, 2012 00:42:42 jerro wrote:
> > After trying your solution I found out I was calling
> > indexOf(string, char) which apparently is different than
> > indexOf(string, string) as I now no longer have that error.
> > Instead, when I call parse on compile time I get the following
After trying your solution I found out I was calling
indexOf(string, char) which apparently is different than
indexOf(string, string) as I now no longer have that error.
Instead, when I call parse on compile time I get the following
at the method parse:
Error: URI class literals cannot be retur
On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 17:02:25 UTC, jerro wrote:
Thnx. Got myself some new errors ;)
It seems that std.string.indexOf() does not work at compile
time. Is there a solution or alternative method for this?
I guess the proper solution would be to make std.string.indexOf
work at compile
Thnx. Got myself some new errors ;)
It seems that std.string.indexOf() does not work at compile
time. Is there a solution or alternative method for this?
I guess the proper solution would be to make std.string.indexOf
work at compile time. It looks like changing the first
if (std.ascii.isASC
On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 15:32:59 UTC, jerro wrote:
Something entirely else is the CTFE compatibility of URI. At
first I though that because a new instance of URI can be
created as a const, it would be evaluated on compile time.
This is part of how I test CTFE at the moment:
const URI u
Something entirely else is the CTFE compatibility of URI. At
first I though that because a new instance of URI can be
created as a const, it would be evaluated on compile time.
This is part of how I test CTFE at the moment:
const URI uri36 = URI.parse("http://dlang.org/";);
assert(uri36.scheme
Been thinking about this for a while now, but I can't decide
which one I should choose.
Currently there is a class URI which has an static method
(parser) which returns an instance of URI on success. On failure
it will return null.
I agree with Jens Mueller on the fact that URI should be a s
On 2012-10-28 12:39, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I don't know everything that he's basing it on, but we've definitely had
complaints in this newsgroup in the past over breaking changes (and it
wouldn't surprise me if the folks in this newsgroup are more willing to put up
with breaking changes than m
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:32:14 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 10/26/2012 2:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:> There's definitely
> > some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be
> >
> > > against breaking anything period.
> >
> > We have a number of fed up develo
Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 2:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:> There's definitely
> some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be
> > against breaking anything period.
>
> We have a number of fed up developers and abandoned, dead projects
> because of breaking changes.
>
> It M
On 2012-10-26 22:20, Walter Bright wrote:
n 10/23/2012 1:47 PM, Mike van Dongen wrote:
> My code can be found here, at the bottom of the already existing file
uri.d:
> https://github.com/MikevanDongen/phobos/blob/uri-parser/std/uri.d
Needs to have a range interface, not a string interface.
F
On 2012-10-26 16:16, Jens Mueller wrote:
Probably. I'm all for it.
The thing is that new things are proposed but these then die out
quickly. I have that feeling e.g. with trello.com even though it's a
good idea. I wish I knew why these things do not work out.
But there are also decisions that tu
On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 20:20:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Needs to have a range interface, not a string interface.
I don't think range makes any sense for this. It isn't something
you'd loop over... you just load the one string and slice it up.
On 10/26/2012 2:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:> There's definitely some truth to
that, but Walter in particular seems to be
> against breaking anything period.
We have a number of fed up developers and abandoned, dead projects because of
breaking changes.
It MUST STOP.
n 10/23/2012 1:47 PM, Mike van Dongen wrote:
> My code can be found here, at the bottom of the already existing file uri.d:
> https://github.com/MikevanDongen/phobos/blob/uri-parser/std/uri.d
Needs to have a range interface, not a string interface.
On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 14:22:07 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 14:13:21 UTC, Mike van Dongen
wrote:
I am however considering it because even though not (clearly)
defined, they are URIs and they are often used.
The basedOn function in my uri struct in cgi.d does
On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 14:13:21 UTC, Mike van Dongen wrote:
I am however considering it because even though not (clearly)
defined, they are URIs and they are often used.
The basedOn function in my uri struct in cgi.d does it:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programmi
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-10-26 11:53, Jens Mueller wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately there are no portable solutions. The only thing I found is
> >symbol versioning. But this is only supported by GNU ld.
> >These strategic issues need to be solved.
>
> There are many other solutions that can be us
On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 11:52:09 UTC, John Chapman wrote:
Looks good.
Does it handle relative URIs? It would also be nice to support
combining URIs from an absolute and relative portion.
Another omission is handling file URIs.
It doesn't support relative URIs as their syntax is not
o
Looks good.
Does it handle relative URIs? It would also be nice to support
combining URIs from an absolute and relative portion.
Another omission is handling file URIs.
On 2012-10-26 11:13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There's definitely some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be
against breaking anything period. If it were entirely up to him, pretty much
none of the breaking changes that have happened to Phobos' API over the last
few years would have
On 2012-10-26 11:53, Jens Mueller wrote:
Unfortunately there are no portable solutions. The only thing I found is
symbol versioning. But this is only supported by GNU ld.
These strategic issues need to be solved.
There are many other solutions that can be used to easy this problem.
The releas
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:27:40 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > Is it okay to have both modules and only state in std.uri's
> > documentation that you shouldn't use it anymore (similar to std.xml)?
> > This would break no code.
>
> If we were to move it, we'd temporarily lea
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:27:40 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Is it okay to have both modules and only state in std.uri's
> documentation that you shouldn't use it anymore (similar to std.xml)?
> This would break no code.
If we were to move it, we'd temporarily leave a near-empty std.uri which
publi
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:59:17 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > > No. The issue is code breakage in the code of people using Phobos, and if
> > > you change where the module is, you'll break code. Even if we provide a
> > > deprecation path from std.uri to std.net.uri, that s
On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:59:17 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > No. The issue is code breakage in the code of people using Phobos, and if
> > you change where the module is, you'll break code. Even if we provide a
> > deprecation path from std.uri to std.net.uri, that still means that
> > people will
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:11:04 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > > On 2012-10-25 23:06, Jens Mueller wrote:
> > > >I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for
> > > >std.uri, if there are none. Then move it.
> > >
> > > Agree,
On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:11:04 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2012-10-25 23:06, Jens Mueller wrote:
> > >I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for
> > >std.uri, if there are none. Then move it.
> >
> > Agree, but we want to minimize the code break
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 23:06, Jens Mueller wrote:
>
> >I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for
> >std.uri, if there are none. Then move it.
>
> Agree, but we want to minimize the code breakage.
That's what the unittests are for.
Code breakage that result
On 2012-10-25 23:06, Jens Mueller wrote:
I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for
std.uri, if there are none. Then move it.
Agree, but we want to minimize the code breakage.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 23:05:14 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 25, 2012 15:59:39 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > > > * Should URIs be only movable? Then you should add
> > > > @disable this(this);
> > >
> > > I'd be shocked if th
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 23:05:14 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 25, 2012 15:59:39 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > > * Should URIs be only movable? Then you should add
> > > @disable this(this);
> >
> > I'd be shocked if that were appropriate. Disabling the ini
Mike van Dongen wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 October 2012 at 13:59:59 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >Just some small nit-picks.
>
> That's what I was hoping for :D
>
>
> > in general checkout the Phobos style guide regarding function
> >names
> > etc.
> > http://dlang.org/dstyle.html
>
> > add som
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-10-25 15:20, Mike van Dongen wrote:
>
> >It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it ;)
> >I have commented all code that's not straightforward, but nothing for
> >the Ddoc.
>
> If think the ddoc is the most important one.
>
> >Can you give me an example of how sp
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 15:59:39 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > * Should URIs be only movable? Then you should add
> > @disable this(this);
>
> I'd be shocked if that were appropriate. Disabling the init property like
> that
> should be done extremely rarely and only if
On 2012-10-25 15:20, Mike van Dongen wrote:
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it ;)
I have commented all code that's not straightforward, but nothing for
the Ddoc.
If think the ddoc is the most important one.
Can you give me an example of how specific I need to be in the
documentation
On Thursday, 25 October 2012 at 13:59:59 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
Just some small nit-picks.
That's what I was hoping for :D
in general checkout the Phobos style guide regarding function
names
etc.
http://dlang.org/dstyle.html
add some unittests.
Thanks! I haven't read that pag
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 15:59:39 Jens Mueller wrote:
> * Should URIs be only movable? Then you should add
> @disable this(this);
I'd be shocked if that were appropriate. Disabling the init property like that
should be done extremely rarely and only if you need to. It's problematic that
that
Mike van Dongen wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've been working on an URI parser which takes a string and then
> separates the parts and puts them in the correct properties.
> If a valid URI was provided, the (static) parser will return an
> instance of Uri.
>
> I've commented all relevant lines of code a
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 12:47:15 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
BTW don't forget that this is legal:
?value&value=1&value=2
The appropriate type for the AA is
string[][string]
Thanks for the type! It's now implemented.
uri = Uri.parse("http://dlang.org/?value&value=1&value=2";);
assert(
On 2012-10-25 13:24, Mike van Dongen wrote:
Now it allows you to create/edit an URI. You can do so by using an array
or string, whichever you prefer.
I also added a toString() method and fixed the indentation to 4 spaces,
instead of 1 tab.
uri = new Uri();
uri.scheme = "foo";
uri.username = "us
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 20:36:51 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 19:54:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
A nitpick, I'm not really an expert on URI's but is "fragment"
really the correct name for that I would call the "hash"? That
would be "nose" in the example b
On 2012-10-24 22:36, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Yes, that's the term in the standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier
Javascript calls it the hash though, but it is slightly different: the #
symbol itself is not part of the fragment according to the standard.
But javascript's locat
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 19:54:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
A nitpick, I'm not really an expert on URI's but is "fragment"
really the correct name for that I would call the "hash"? That
would be "nose" in the example below.
Yes, that's the term in the standard.
http://en.wikipedia.or
On 2012-10-24 20:22, Mike van Dongen wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions!
I've added many, if not all, of them to the repo:
- Identifying/separating the username, password (together the userinfo),
the domain and the port number from the authority.
- The hash now also can be get/set and the same t
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 07:38:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I would have expected a few additional components, like:
* Domain
* Password
* Username
* Host
* Hash
A way to build an URI base on the components.
It would be nice if there were methods for getting/setting the
path component
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 07:38:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I would have expected a few additional components, like:
* Domain
* Password
* Username
* Host
* Hash
A way to build an URI base on the components.
It would be nice if there were methods for getting/setting the
path componen
On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 07:38:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
It would be nice if there were methods for getting/setting the
path component as an array. Also methods for getting/setting
the query component as an associative array.
BTW don't forget that this is legal:
?value&value=1&val
On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 20:47:26 UTC, Mike van Dongen
wrote:
https://github.com/MikevanDongen/phobos/blob/uri-parser/std/uri.d
If you want to take any of the code from mine, feel free. It is
struct Uri in my cgi.d:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-langu
On 2012-10-23 22:47, Mike van Dongen wrote:
Hi all!
I've been working on an URI parser which takes a string and then
separates the parts and puts them in the correct properties.
If a valid URI was provided, the (static) parser will return an instance
of Uri.
I've commented all relevant lines of
53 matches
Mail list logo
