[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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:15:32 +0200
- Delivered-to: srfi-106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ymail.com; s=s1024; t=1349716531; bh=BrqRXCMJIHL3E9YymrABtTHgDRkW7NNAQofXjJmdSlk=; 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=mucV7Te6CVaAFQeyYFszuTwp2a/8nCVPyOkBucVb4TOGqlZ47KsnHRov9/OU/i+d79MM94nEu3sxuCxIwa8xINauiEr4TFEztfS1yjstiKyE4D9R0nqcDDQgg//tDoREq55g9HTIVeUXoQ2zBq1igeirGQNtOkBIefPjfk6BdEw=
- In-reply-to: <op.wltpognr0p3ku8@localhost>
- References: <op.wlr50aws0p3ku8@localhost> <507133DC.20206@xxxxxxxxx> <op.wltpognr0p3ku8@localhost>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
(2012/10/07 21:27), Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
I didn't think about FFI. That's true. However using FFI might limits
the supporting platform. As far as I know, Mosh and Ypslion supports
only X86 and X64 for their FFI and they already have own socket libraries.
If you are talking about Scheme implementations, then I am not sure I get
your point here. Implementations with an FFI will not have any trouble,
while implementations that support what you have specified here directly
certainly seem capable of support the approach that I have taken as well,
any other implementation will not likely be able to support either api.
I disagree with this. At least your APIs have at least three times more
procedures than I provided. And it needs to have addrinfo structure to
handle all BSD style socket APIs.
My API is not much more complicated than what you have provided here.
SRFI already have such example, SRFI-28 and 48. Both specifies 'format'
procedure and users can choose how much they need. If future SRFI
supports complete BSD-style socket APIs, I wouldn't think it's confusing
but different layer of APIs. If you need more control, you can use lower
layer of socket.
I suggest that they be merged simply because I don't think the differences
are very great, and I think having two SRFIs for this would only make
things more confusing.