Sorry, Jay; I’ve just tested this and I hit:
Servlet (@ /...) exception:
bytes->string/utf-8: string is not a well-formed UTF-8 encoding
string: #"timmeh \351"
context...:
/usr/local/racket/extra-pkgs/web-server/web-server-lib/web-server/http/bindings.rkt:9:7
loop
/usr/local/racket-6.5/s
You should not be using request-headers or request-bindings if you
don't want them to be interpreted as UTF-8. The documentation for
web-server/http/bindings explicitly says, "We recommend against their
use, but they are provided for compatibility with old code."
Jay
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:49
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
>
> 1. I think Eli points out in issue where \277 and \276 are not ci=?
>to each other.
No -- my comment there is about \277 and \277 (itself), which are
neither `bytes-ci=?` nor not because the implementation assumes that the
two bytes to com
William's remark is spot on about my use-case. There exists a language that
wasn't initially designed with racket in mind, but could easily be a racket
#lang. To interop with code already written in this language, I wanted an easy
way to run files that don't have the #lang line. If I were design
Is there any way to create a new syntax object containing a list without
recursively converting the list’s elements to syntax objects as well? I
have some code where I wanted to use syntax objects as a convenient
mechanism to tag arbitrary datums with source location information (and
they will be u
5 matches
Mail list logo