[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.

Sure, I can try. I'll try to follow the general pattern of the SRFI document. I will begin with the relative equivalencies between the interfaces.

Thank you very much for this detailed comparison.

I must say that while supporting your full interface looks like a lot more work, since it is designed to be extensible, it should be possible to make a compatible subset that, as you say, can be extended without requiring the core API to change.

I certainly support your choice of using Schemely names instead of Unix-specific, all-caps names like SOCK_STREAM; 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.

It would be great to see these proposals become closer to each other.