Please update SRFI-106 Takashi Kato (06 Aug 2013 19:39 UTC)
Re: Please update SRFI-106 John Cowan (06 Aug 2013 20:19 UTC)
Re: Please update SRFI-106 Takashi Kato (06 Aug 2013 20:44 UTC)
Re: Please update SRFI-106 John Cowan (06 Aug 2013 21:23 UTC)
Re: Please update SRFI-106 Shiro Kawai (07 Aug 2013 08:51 UTC)
Re: Please update SRFI-106 Takashi Kato (07 Aug 2013 19:43 UTC)

Re: Please update SRFI-106 Takashi Kato 06 Aug 2013 20:44 UTC

On 06/08/2013 22:19, John Cowan wrote:
 > 1) Why are there both flag-creating macros and constant variables with
 > flag values?  It would seem to be enough to just have one.  Personally I
 > favor having the macros, though I can see arguments both ways.
The macros came after the constants and I wanted to hear opinions but
unfortunately I haven't heard anything until now. However I think it's
nice to have both for people who are familiar with C socket programming
and who aren't.

 > 2) There is no meaningful support for UDP.  I think a socket API
 > shouldn't ignore UDP.
I think POSIX SOCK_DGRAM is for UDP socket (correct me if I'm wrong) and
the SRFI is supporting it.

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