[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.

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