Re: ‘http-get*’ and all that

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Howdy!

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:

> On Fri 11 Jan 2013 17:53, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> "Andy Wingo" <wingo@pobox.com> 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
manageable.

>> 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:
> http://docs.python-requests.org/en/latest/  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 (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/9373), 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!  :-)

Ludo’.