[armedbear-devel] EXT:URL-PATHNAME vs http: as a logical pathname
evenson at panix.com
Tue Aug 13 22:56:00 UTC 2013
On 8/12/13 9:55 PM, Karsten Poeck wrote:
> I completely understand that it is desirable to have
> (load "http://beta.quicklisp.org/quicklisp.lisp") working, but can't you
> check for "http://" or "https://" before converting a pathname to an
A quite reasonable request. URL-PATHNAME objects are actually supposed
to be strictly defined as a [URI], which we can distinguish by having
a "/" immediately after the ":" so I think we are in good shape to
implement this in a sane manner that covers all possible cases, not
those just with "http" and "https" schemas.
Filed as [ticket][#327].
"A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there
is nothing to compare to it now."
More information about the armedbear-devel