On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:48:44 -0400, Takashi Kato <xxxxxx@ymail.com>
wrote:

> (2012/10/07 1:25), Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
>> I appreciate the effort undertaken here. However, I would like the
>> author of this SRFI to consider the BSD Sockets interface that I have
>> written located here:
>>
>> http://www.sacrideo.us/v5/proj/chez-sockets/
>>
>> I believe that the two interfaces share a number of things in common.
>> However, I believe that the interface I have designed, which is largely
>> portable among implementations, is likely to scale better, while
>> remaining simple at its core.
>
> The whole purpose of this SRFI is not supporting BSD style socket but
> providing commonly used procedures so that users can avoid to write own
> implementation dependent layers. And as far as I know, not all
> implementations support BSD style socket and it will be a lot of work to
> support it for them.

If you are talking about operating system implementations, then I think
that most operating systems which implement sockets provide at least the
level of sockets that I have specified as required in my own
implementation.

If you are talking about Scheme implementations, then I am not sure I get
your point here. Implementations with an FFI will not have any trouble,
while implementations that support what you have specified here directly
certainly seem capable of support the approach that I have taken as well,
any other implementation will not likely be able to support either api.

My API is not much more complicated than what you have provided here.

> I think other SRFI can support BSD style socket interface and based on
> that this SRFI can be implemented.

I suggest that they be merged simply because I don't think the differences
are very great, and I think having two SRFIs for this would only make
things more confusing.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | xxxxxx@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the Lost Art of Thinking.