On 3 April 2013 18:33, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > () Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> > () Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:47:01 +0800 > > Apparently we are supposed to do this a bit more and accomodate yet > another non-compliant service? > > Maybe that stuff should be exposed to the user. Do a best effort > conversion and if not successful, return a pair ‘(raw-string . STRING)’ > or whatever -- it's enough that it has a different type and that the > type is documented. This way, you avoid carrying forward lots of cruft. > Do it now before it's too late!
Interesting. Though this does gradually erode the type barrier erected by the web module. I am reluctant to cede this territory. Instead of this cruft accumulating in a few places (the web modules), it becomes gratutiously spread around and duplicated in other programs. It was previously suggested to implement a permissive flag that, while not passing unparsed data to the users, will at least not raise errors and stop. > > > Erk. What is the point of defining protocols and standards then? > > One purpose is to challenge programmers to learn how and when to say "no". > :-)
