Re: [Chicken-users] bug update-uri in uri-common

[Evan Hanson]

On 2014-06-08 11:14, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:01:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > Peter Bex scripsit:
> > 
> > > c) The port should not be reset, but the uri should be printed without
> > >     port if it's the default for this scheme.
> > 
> > +1 for (c).
> 
> hm, but if you really want to print http://foo:80/blabla, how
> should that work?

In that case I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to
define their own function to build a string from the URI's composite
parts. We have to pick a default behavior one way or the other, and
"without the port" seems like the better one to me.

Regards,

Evan