On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Two days ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> Eli, I think your comments generally make sense here, but I don't >> see how they help us make concrete resolving what to do with >> string->url and the commit. >> >> As things stand, my inclination would be to try to find a simpler >> regexp that doesn't cost as much in the contract and leave that >> checked in until you get to the changes that you want to do. > > I'm fine with that (and with the push that does it), as long as it's > clear that this would change if it grows to be more than just a regexp > match. (Hence my question whether the second regexp is needed -- if > it's just the first one, then it looks like it already allows other > schemas, to be parsed further in the code.)
I'm not quite following this paragraph, but I think we're in agreement. I've already pushed the change and my inference is that you'd be happy with it (I put some timing numbers in the commit.). Robby _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
