From: Tony M. <to...@te...> - 2004-10-24 10:31:07
Attachments:
sockets.lisp.diff
|
In 0.8.15.11, a socket-error handler which wishes to close the socket, report the FD, etc. must have a local reference to the socket, since it is unobtainable from the socket-error condition. Scenario: we want to write a TCP listener generator, which allocates the socket, binds it to the address, listens on the socket, and then returns the socket. If the socket is allocated correctly, but the bind or listen fail, the signalled error doesn't allow the user to write a handler to, say, close the socket or print out the problem FD. The attached patch hopefully fixes this; comments welcome. In particular, making the socket argument be a keyword argument, rather than an optional, is probably reasonable. --Tony |
From: Tony M. <to...@te...> - 2004-10-24 13:28:03
Attachments:
sb-bsd-sockets.diff
|
> In 0.8.15.11, a socket-error handler which wishes to close the socket, > report the FD, etc. must have a local reference to the socket, since > it is unobtainable from the socket-error condition. [...] Screwed the patch generation up, complete version attached. Sorry about that. --Tony |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2005-06-01 11:09:09
|
Tony Martinez <to...@te...> writes: >> In 0.8.15.11, a socket-error handler which wishes to close the socket, >> report the FD, etc. must have a local reference to the socket, since >> it is unobtainable from the socket-error condition. [...] > > Screwed the patch generation up, complete version attached. Sorry > about that. This looks reasonable to me, but it could do with two changes, I think: firstly, why should SOCKET-ERROR take an &OPTIONAL socket argument? Surely it should be mandatory. Secondly, this should probably be documented in sb-bsd-sockets.texinfo. Cheers, Christophe |
From: Antonio M. <ant...@gm...> - 2005-06-01 12:18:11
|
> This looks reasonable to me, but it could do with two changes, I > think: firstly, why should SOCKET-ERROR take an &OPTIONAL socket > argument? Surely it should be mandatory. Secondly, this should > probably be documented in sb-bsd-sockets.texinfo. With the alluring carrot of a merged socket patch dangling before my eyes, how could I possibly resist? Even <shudder> the documentation bit! I'll prepare a new diff and send it along as soon as I get a free moment on my home machine. Thanks, --Tony |