Hello, Arun Isaac <arunis...@systemreboot.net> skribis:
> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > >>> If you think it's not a good idea to include http-patch in guile, maybe >>> we can export define-http-verb and/or request so that it is easy for >>> users to create their own custom HTTP methods. WDYT? >> >> I would prefer to export the 'request' procedure from (web client), >> although it should probably be exported as a different name, maybe >> 'http-request'. Would that work for you? > > Yes, exporting 'request' alone would serve my purpose, although > 'define-http-verb' would make my script much shorter. But, I'll leave it > to your judgement. Should I send a new patch exporting 'request' alone? Could you do that? The ‘request’ procedure can simply be made public and otherwise left unchanged, but we’d need a docstring and an entry in the manual. Can you take a look? I’ll happily apply the patch afterwards, and I promise you won’t have to wait as much as you did so far! :-) Thanks, Ludo’.
