[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sockets Layer Counter Proposal

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 106 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 106 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

(2012/10/09 18:25), Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
I certainly support your choice of using Schemely names instead of
Unix-specific, all-caps names like SOCK_STREAM;
I will take some names from Aaron's specification so that no longer Unix-specific names. That seemed way better.

of making it possible to
use the same interface to support things like Unix domain sockets and
other implementation-specific types;and not requiring that a separate
socket be allocated for each recipient address for UDP packets.
I'm not sure these are _basic_ requirements. I don't use much socket however I've never written something like UNIX domain sockets or re-using socket. I believe these should be lower layer and for users who need more controls.

Takashi Kato
E-mail: ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx