Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer

Re: URI plus File::Spec::Unix -- good idea or bad?

by izut (Chaplain)
on Aug 24, 2006 at 23:51 UTC ( #569485=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to URI plus File::Spec::Unix -- good idea or bad?

Check URI::file. It seems to suit your needs.

Update: Sorry, misread the OP. Anyways, it has a hint about it:

If you simply want to construct file URI objects from URI strings, use + the normal URI constructor. If you want to construct file URI object +s from the actual file names used by various systems, then use one of + the following URI::file constructors: ...

Igor 'izut' Sutton
your code, your rules.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: URI plus File::Spec::Unix -- good idea or bad?
by mreece (Friar) on Aug 25, 2006 at 00:01 UTC
    that is for file://-schemed URIs, not http, and it doesn't do concatenation, so i have trouble seeing how it could be of use here, unless i am missing something.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://569485]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (6)
As of 2021-03-02 21:42 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    My favorite kind of desktop background is:

    Results (63 votes). Check out past polls.