headers
Attila Lendvai | 2 Oct 2009 11:39
Picon
Gravatar

Re: CPS-transforming symbol-macros

> Now everything works.  Is it a bug in CPS, or am I wrong?

it's a bug in the walker. i believe it's fixed in hu.dwim.walker by
now, maybe in it's origin, in arnesi, too...

--

-- 
 attila

ps: what are 3 years when you can mark mails? :)

_______________________________________________
bese-devel mailing list
bese-devel <at> common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bese-devel
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Attila Lendvai | 2 Oct 2009 12:21
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Patch to rfc2388 to make IE file uploads work properly

> "Marijn Haverbeke" <marijnh <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It seems our rfc2388 lib allowed backslashes to escape the next character when
>> reading the attributes to a multipart header. IE passes the whole path of a
>> file as the filename attribute to Content-Disposition, but this library
>> behaviour stripped out these backslashes. After some looking at RFCs and
>> scratching my head, Marco explained to me that this behaviour is wrong, so here
>> is a patch to the library which removes the backslash-escaping behaviour.
>
> can anyone else confirm that our rfc2388 is wrong and ie is right?

any word on this?

this still cleanly applies to the rfc2388-binary repo...

--

-- 
 attila
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Attila Lendvai | 2 Oct 2009 12:36
Picon
Gravatar

Re: fix for rfc2388 bug

> Uploading a file containing a CRLF followed by more than two dashes fails
> with the current rfc2388 (it doesn't handle backtracking correctly when
> looking for the boundary string). Attached is a patch which adds test-cases
> for this (you might want to change those a bit -- I'm rather new to the
> world of unit-testing and 5am), and fixes the problem by changing
> read-until-next-boundary.
>
> For some reason it doesn't apply cleanly when my previous patch is also
> applied, but the conflict is very trivial to merge (there is no conflict
> that I can see, but darcs insists on putting V's and ^'s around some code).

any word on this?

i have it applied and merged in my local branch, ready to be pushed.

but should it be pushed? anyone with some rfc insights?

--

-- 
 attila
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Drew Crampsie | 4 Oct 2009 22:45

Re: fix for rfc2388 bug

Hey Attila, Marjin,

>> Uploading a file containing a CRLF followed by more than two dashes fails
>> with the current rfc2388 (it doesn't handle backtracking correctly when
>> looking for the boundary string.

Strangely enough, i just got a bug report from a client regarding this.

> any word on this?
>
> i have it applied and merged in my local branch, ready to be pushed.
>
> but should it be pushed? anyone with some rfc insights?

If you've been using it, and it fixes this problem, then i'm all for
pushing it. Otherwise, if there's any objection.. what's the URL for
your branch? :)

Cheers,

drewc
>
> --
>  attila
>
> _______________________________________________
> bese-devel mailing list
> bese-devel <at> common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bese-devel
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Attila Lendvai | 5 Oct 2009 07:32
Picon
Gravatar

Re: fix for rfc2388 bug

>> any word on this?
>>
>> i have it applied and merged in my local branch, ready to be pushed.
>>
>> but should it be pushed? anyone with some rfc insights?
>
>
> If you've been using it, and it fixes this problem, then i'm all for

well, i don't have any problem regarding this. i was just running
through my starred mails an this patch was one of them...

> pushing it. Otherwise, if there's any objection.. what's the URL for
> your branch? :)

by local branch i've meant my local darcs repo on my laptop.

i've pushed some changes to the official repo, please take a look at
them an report if anything breaks, and do send a darcs patch with the
failing test!

those patches look better than letting them rest in mail archives for
2+ years...

--

-- 
 attila
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane