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 John Cowan 06 Aug 2013 21:23 UTC
Takashi Kato scripsit: > 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. I think that C programmers shouldn't have much trouble either way: (address-family inet) and *af-inet* both look pretty close to AF_INET. The macros have the advantage that it's possible to check at compile time that the value being passed in is valid, which is not possible with the variables. > > 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. You can use bound UDP sockets with this API, but not unbound ones: for those you need access to sendto() and recvfrom(). See <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan>. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander." An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia