On 18/06/2013 23:11, Shiro Kawai wrote:
> So I don't object the current spec as is.  But I wonder what other
> implementors do.
I think that's the whole point of 'socket-ports'. But I'm tending rather
let implementation support bidirectional port.

> BTW, it hits me that the srfi may need to describe what happens to a
> socket when you close the socket port, and what happens to a socket
> port when the socket is closed.
I was thinking (and reference implementations do) that when port is
closed then it's cleanup the socket. But as you mentioned about multi
process, it might not be a good idea. Chibi's style (specifying whether
or not cleanup the socket on GC time or closing) seems reasonable to me.

Now, think about multi process what should happen on GCing socket? (I'm
not even sure how socket object can be passed to other process since the
srfi doesn't have any way to create it passing fd though.) To me, it's
reasonable to cleanup since no srfi nor standards mentions multi
process, or is it better to be unspecified so that implementations have
space to expand?

_/_/
Takashi Kato
E-mail: xxxxxx@ymail.com