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.
> Okay, in this case I fail to see the reason for the explicit socket > argument. I do think that the automatic closing could be useful, but in > the form specified by 106 I think it's too awkward and annoying to use. > I'd probably prefer: > > (call-with-socket domain type protocol thunk)Does THUNK accept a socket or not? I'm not sure if only these arguments can make proper socket or do users need to bind, connect bla, themselves?
_/_/ Takashi Kato E-mail: ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx