(2012/10/07 21:27), Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> 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.
I didn't think about FFI. That's true. However using FFI might limits
the supporting platform. As far as I know, Mosh and Ypslion supports
only X86 and X64 for their FFI and they already have own socket libraries.

> My API is not much more complicated than what you have provided here.
I disagree with this. At least your APIs have at least three times more
procedures than I provided. And it needs to have addrinfo structure to
handle all BSD style socket APIs.

> 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.
SRFI already have such example, SRFI-28 and 48. Both specifies 'format'
procedure and users can choose how much they need. If future SRFI
supports complete BSD-style socket APIs, I wouldn't think it's confusing
but different layer of APIs. If you need more control, you can use lower
layer of socket.

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