[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal
- To: srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal
- From: Takashi Kato <ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:19:43 +0200
- Delivered-to: srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ymail.com; s=s1024; t=1349601583; bh=o7g8zxMD5xgNjkGAVjEzo5alUmvW0Fi9ElasuUmWlfg=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=u0CkcuOiGRJBfbvSEiI3trJE3++ee/WTDDbthgyXenzm/V0GYTmTvMZVWX7rUV8xxrJRLps2JBy5je7V8AIxY8FD/PP7R+BJjB7G5v5NOzhC3CZz1eM7VLOHcqV7BUOd98Q92AD1CbT6WJ74m1BfTUcx6VrQjYt7DUPcbJYAcvM=
- In-reply-to: <op.wlr50aws0p3ku8@localhost>
- References: <op.wlr50aws0p3ku8@localhost>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
Sorry I sent the response individually by mistake, here the same comments.
(2012/10/07 1:25), Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> I appreciate the effort undertaken here. However, I would like the
> author of this SRFI to consider the BSD Sockets interface that I have
> written located here:
> I believe that the two interfaces share a number of things in common.
> However, I believe that the interface I have designed, which is largely
> portable among implementations, is likely to scale better, while
> remaining simple at its core.
The whole purpose of this SRFI is not supporting BSD style socket but
providing commonly used procedures so that users can avoid to write own
implementation dependent layers. And as far as I know, not all
implementations support BSD style socket and it will be a lot of work to
support it for them.
I think other SRFI can support BSD style socket interface and based on
that this SRFI can be implemented.