(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: xxxxxx@ymail.com