From: Mateusz B. <mat...@fa...> - 2016-05-31 02:58:09
|
On Sun, May 29, 2016, at 11:28, Stas Boukarev wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Mateusz Berezecki <mat...@fa...> > wrote: > > > > > > On 29 May 2016, at 11:21, Stas Boukarev wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Mateusz Berezecki <mat...@fa...> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> --- > >>> contrib/sb-bsd-sockets/constants.lisp | 1 + > >>> contrib/sb-bsd-sockets/sockets.lisp | 1 + > >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > >> That's missing a windows definition. > > > > > > Sorry, don’t have a single Windows machine laying around. Using > > freebsd/linux/osx only at the moment. > > What’s the corresponding Windows definition ? > Probably the same, but it needs to be figured out. After thinking about it I don't think this needs to be supported. Windows supports EWOULDBLOCK via BSD sockets and this is what this package, sb-bsd-sockets, is about. If you want to use Windows specific errors and API you use Winsock api and that uses WSAEWOULDBLOCK. sb-bsd-sockets is not a winsock api. it is a BSD socket api which is fairly well standardized and even under windows EWOULDBLOCK is returned. You can take a look at the code samples at Microsoft's own website. This is what they say: Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms737828(v=vs.85).aspx Mateusz |