>>>> In message <wkya57sio4.fsf@...>
>>>> On the subject of "Re: PORT:SOCKET-STRING, PORT:SOCKET-HOST/PORT"
>>>> Sent on Thu May 18 15:36:25 EDT 2000
>>>> Honorable Chris Double <chris@...> writes:
>> The nice thing about CCL is interfacing to code in other languages
>> is very easy. The c-ffi is very complete.
I did not mean to be mean about CCL - it's a wonderful tool.
Nevertheless, the socket interface it provides is too low-level compared
to the APIs provided by other CL implementations.
>> > Please lobby Roger Corman to provide high-level socket API.
>> I don't need too. One is already available as I mentioned in my
>> pervious message.
>> I am more than happy to implement the CLOCC functions using this
>> library. Would you have a problem with having these implemented
>> functions for corman-with-third-party-library (ie. with some feature
>> for this)?
CLOCC is not supposed to rely on any non-clocc code.
Therefore, you will either have to add your code to CCL, or place it
under LGPL and put it into clocc/src/port/.
I prefer the former solution, for obvious reasons.
in case the reasons are not obvious:
1. your code is CCL-specific, CLOCC is supposed to be for portable code
2. if we distribute your code and Corman adds another high-level socket
API to CCL, we will end up having to support two sets of CCL APIs
3. generally, I would love to see PORT distributed with every CL
implementation in existance, making it unnecessary for people to d/l
it to be able to write portable code; your code has to be
distributed with just one implementation - CCL, let's go for it!
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux,
(http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation.