RFC curl

[Manu]

Ah, I see :)

Are those extremely useful protocols already supported in the D standard
library? I haven't checked... (yes, I *could* check right now ;)

On 10 November 2011 16:09, Jonas Drewsen <jdrewsen at nospam.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/11 14.58, Manu wrote:
>
>> This must be a really silly question, or it would have been asked
>> already, so I apologise in advance.
>>
>> It appears you have written a low level http, ftp, smtp library included
>> in this library... why is there not a standard library for each of these
>> protocols, and why aren't you building on top of that?
>>
>
> The new etc.curl (std.curl) module is actually build on top of the libcurl
> bindings located in etc.c.curl. So all low level stuff is handled by the
> standard libcurl library.
>
> /Jonas
>
>
>  - me
>>
>> On 10 November 2011 15:43, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com
>> <mailto:doob at me.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    On 2011-11-10 11:21, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>>        Well, for better or worse, we don't have an official policy on
>>        it. In general, I
>>        think that the tact is to try and rename the item so that it
>>        doesn't pose a
>>        problem, but that's not always possible (hence
>>        FunctionAttribute.pure_). In
>>        this case, since it comes from something else, it looks like it
>>        really should
>>        be some version of delete. However, whereas FunctionAttribute
>>        pretty much
>>        _had_ to be as close to the keyword as possible since it
>>        represented the
>>        keyword, that's not the case here, and given how ugly it is to
>>        tack the _ on,
>>        del seems like a reasonable solution.
>>
>>        In any case, if we want something official, we'd have to discuss
>>        it, and we
>>        generally have a hard time coming to any kind of consensus on
>>        stuff like that.
>>        So, I don't generally try unless it seems particularly important.
>>
>>        - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>>
>>    I think we should write down, somewhere, what we have, what we have
>>    agreed on unofficially. It may not be complete and not contain
>>    details for everything but it would at least be something. Instead
>>    of having to explain this every time we get a new contributor to
>>    Phobos or one has to try to find this information in the newsgroup.
>>
>>    --
>>    /Jacob Carlborg
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20111110/f010698a/attachment.html>