[plt-scheme] Can this possibly be right?

More recent than 4.2.5? You move fast... :-)

Thanks for looking into it. I thought I was going insane. The fact
that it's not just me doesn't mean that I'm not going insane, but it
at least gives me false hope.

Todd

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a more recent version, you won't get an error like that, you'll get
> a contract violation:
>
> expected <cookie-value?>, given: ")!"
>
> ")!" is definitely not a token, because ) is not allowed.
>
> ")!" is definitely not a quoted-string, because it is not wrapped in ".
>
> If we convert it to a quoted form, "\")!\"", then it is still not a
> token, because " is not allowed.
>
> That string is then tested with:
>
> (regexp-match?
>        #rx"^\"([^\"#\u0000-#\u001F]| |#\return#\newline|#\tab|\\\\\")*\"$" s)
>
> which seems like it should work. However, it may an error in the
> regexp engine. A ! character is #\u0021 (which is 2 after #\u001F,
> which is not allowed. Maybe some faulty optimization is happening that
> breaks it?
>
> What's odd is that
>
> (regexp-match?
>        #rx"^\"([^\"#\u0000]| |#\return#\newline|#\tab|\\\\\")*\"$"
>        "\")!\"")
>
> succeeds, but
>
> (regexp-match?
>        #rx"^\"([^\"#\u0000-#\u0000]| |#\return#\newline|#\tab|\\\\\")*\"$"
>        "\")!\"")
>
> and
>
> (regexp-match?
>        #rx"^\"([^\"#\u0000-#\u0001]| |#\return#\newline|#\tab|\\\\\")*\"$"
>        "\")!\"")
>
> fail.
>
> This seems like a deeper bug than net/cookie, but maybe I'm missing
> something obvious.
>
> Jay
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Todd O'Bryan <toddobryan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've either found a bug in net/cookie-unit or I'm very confused.
>>
>> #lang scheme
>> (require web-server/http/cookie)
>>
>> (make-cookie "name" "value")
>> (make-cookie "name" "(")
>> (make-cookie "name" "!")
>> (make-cookie "name" ")")
>> (make-cookie "name" ")!")
>> (make-cookie "name" "(!")
>> (make-cookie "name" "(!)")
>> (make-cookie "name" "!)")
>>
>> The first four cookies above work fine. The last four raise the error:
>>
>> could not convert the given string to an acceptable RFC 2109 value
>>
>> I looked through the code, but I can't see any obvious reason why
>> having an exclamation point and a parenthesis in the same string
>> should cause an error and I'm pretty sure the RFC doesn't require any
>> error here. Any insights?
>>
>> The offending function is to-rfc2109:value.
>>
>> Todd
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
> http://teammccarthy.org/jay
>
> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
>