[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ‘http-get*’ and all that

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: ‘http-get*’ and all that
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:30:33 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)


Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Fri 11 Jan 2013 17:53, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> "Andy Wingo" <address@hidden> skribis:
>>>       (http-get): Redefine in terms of http-get.  Deprecate the
>>>       #:extra-headers argument in favor of #:headers.  Allow a body.  Add a
>>>       #:streaming? argument, subsuming the functionality of http-get*.
>>>       (http-get*): Deprecate.
>> ‘http-get*’ was added in 2.0.7, so it doesn’t seem wise to deprecate it
>> just a couple of months later, no?
> In many ways it's better to deprecate early while there are few users,
> and the change was recent.  It's not like the interfaces are actually
> going away for a while.

Right.  It still gives a bad impression, I think, but it’s technically

>> As for adding another keyword instead of another procedure, that’s fine,
>> but not strikingly more elegant either, IMO.
> We would have had to add 3 or 4 additional procedures: http-put*,
> http-post*, etc.  It was actually less work to add #:streaming? to
> http-get, and at that point http-get* is superfluous.

OK, I see.  Uniformity among http-{post,put,get} is probably a good idea.

> When making these choices, I used Python's "requests" module as a guide:
>  It's actually quite nice to
> use.

Interesting (I admit this is not part of my culture ;-)).

>> In terms of process, I’d prefer more discussion.  For instance, while we
>> briefly discussed (ice-9 iconv) on IRC, posting an RFC here, or at least
>> a note, would have helped give the feeling that people are in the loop,
>> and may have turned up useful feedback.
> Sure, no problem.  I had assumed that the old guile-user discussion was
> sufficient (, but I
> can't blame you for forgetting about a thread last April ;)

Oh, I confess I had forgotten about that one, sorry.

> Any other points on the code?

No!  :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]