Peter, hello.
On 19 Oct 2018, at 9:42, Peter Bex wrote:
> I've just pushed 0.18 (for C4) and 1.1 (for C5), please give it a try.
I can confirm that 0.18 works exactly as expected, on Chicken 4.
Best wishes,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk
Peter and all, hello.
On 19 Oct 2018, at 14:37, Peter Bex wrote:
For most people this is sufficient. If you have specific requirements
that can't be done in a clean way with http-client, it might make more
sense to use intarweb directly and perhaps copy and paste some code
from http-client.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:01:20PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> Now I want to replace that mess I wrote over 15 years ago with an
> alternative implementation I don't have to maintain alone. http-client comes
> to mind.
>
> Looking closer I don't like to install exception handlers in
John, hello.
On 18 Oct 2018, at 20:49, John Cowan wrote:
The difference between 301 and 302 is primarily relevant to crawlers
and
caches. I agree that it needs to exist, but not clear that a
general-purpose client needs to expose it. Can you explain your use
case
more clearly?
It seems
On Oct 18 2018, John Cowan wrote:
The difference between 301 and 302 is primarily relevant to crawlers and
caches. I agree that it needs to exist, but not clear that a
general-purpose client needs to expose it. Can you explain your use case
more clearly? Thanks.
John, to me this does not
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:19:22PM +0100, Norman Gray wrote:
> If I parameterise that with (parameterize ((max-redirect-depth 0)) ...),
> then the client library doesn't follow the redirection but instead raises
> (exn http redirect-depth-exceeded). That's almost there, except that the
>
The difference between 301 and 302 is primarily relevant to crawlers and
caches. I agree that it needs to exist, but not clear that a
general-purpose client needs to expose it. Can you explain your use case
more clearly? Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM Norman Gray wrote:
>
>
