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.
Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > >Like R[67]RS call-with-port, it makes sure the socket is closed if proc > >terminates normally, a non-trivial difference. > > 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 proc) That's a different thing. Like call-with-port, call-with-socket encapsulates the idea "I have a port/socket, which I obtained however. I want to run this procedure with unwind protection so that the port/socket will be closed when I'm done." The call-with-socket you have here is more like call-with-{input,output}-file. -- No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous cowan@xxxxxxxx internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev