A, of course, now I understand what you were trying to tell me previously. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, Peter.
In my particular use-case, I am changing to a custom scheme and this "port clear on scheme change" feature made me scratch my head for a while (but that happens quite often, so is no indicator if whether the api is intuitive or not!). So if we were to vote, it'd put my two cents on not modifying the port unless explicitly stated (if it's already #f it's still work like you'd expect). K. On May 13, 2014 11:28 PM, "Peter Bex" <peter....@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:25:23PM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: > > Hmmm ... The scheme is changed, like you say, but the port is too, from > 100 > > to #f, which is what I find surprising. > > > > I cannot seem to find a way to update the uri without loosing the port. > > What am doing wrong here? > > Try updating it simultaneously. This should work: > > (update-uri foo scheme: 'http port: 100) > > The idea is that you'd rarely want to switch to an entirely different > protocol on the same port anyway, so the sane thing to do is reset it to > the default. > > If this doesn't work either, it would be a bug. > > Cheers, > Peter > -- > http://www.more-magic.net >
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
