Chris Vine writes:
> Ah thanks, that's great. My "fault" was in assuming that in the absence
> of documentation, the http-get procedure does what is "obvious" (ie what
> other similar high-level http libraries do) and leaves the reading of
> the body to read-response-body. I have now looked at
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:14:31 +
Ian Price wrote:
[snip]
> It's actually debatable whether or not this is your fault :). http-get
> returns 2 values: the response and the body. When you call
> read-response-body on the port, you are trying to read information
> that has already been read, and so
