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

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:
...
[download]

Igor 'izut' Sutton
your code, your rules.

Comment on Re: URI plus File::Spec::Unix -- good idea or bad? Download Code

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.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom