From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2002-01-05 20:02:16
|
> * In message <m3l...@je...> > * On the subject of "Re: [clisp-list] socket-streams vs. two-way streams" > * Sent on 03 Jan 2002 11:52:18 -0500 > * Honorable Todd Sabin <ta...@we...> writes: > > > why do you want this? > > It would allow you to set different element-types and encodings on the > input and output sides of the socket. > > It would provide a nice interface to shutdown(2) a socket. You could > call (close (two-way-stream-output-stream *my-sock*)), and have it > implemented with shutdown(2) in C, instead of close(2). I don't understand this. why is shutdown better than close? what does this have to do with two-way-stream-output-stream being applicable to a socket? > It just seems right to me. > > Of course, there may be implications that I don't see. Turning the > question around, why wouldn't you want this? because I don't know all the possible pitfalls. are you prepared to submit tested (at least on two platforms) patches and take responsibility (as in "fix bugs") for the code you write? if yes, your patches (against CVS) will be accepted. (we should probably move this discussion to <clisp-devel>.) -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp> Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/> Isn't "Microsoft Works" an advertisement lie? |