Re: more url-utils?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

address@hidden writes:

> Yes, normaly you only want the data, and an exception if that doesnt
> happen properly. So, your proposal is good. Except a function argument
> would expose the interface better IMHO. (But I understand why in
> practice a binding might be more feasible. Hmm.)

For backwards compatibility (i.e., for out-of-bzr users) a binding might
be preferable (perhaps), but you're right, an extra optional parameter
`data-only-p' would make more sense.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/