Re: [Scheme-reports] Scheme-reports Digest, Vol 10, Issue 1

["Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb@x>]

Having used it and found the experience non-punitive, I'll say that Aubrey's level of interface is extremely easy to use, and does the right thing.

It is reasonable to specify a subset of Posix; it is not reasonable to specify a simplification which cannot be used except in toy programs.

Thomas

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Aubrey Jaffer <agj@x> wrote:

 | From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
 | Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:05:35 -0400

 |
 | On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
 | <tb@x> wrote:
 |
 | > I would be happy if Scheme-2 said "this is how we map to Posix.1
 | > facilities", and very unhappy if they started deciding what a good
 | > networking interface looks like.
 |
 | As chair of WG2, that is exactly what I expect to see happen.  The
 | WG has rejected providing a complete interface to Posix (which
 | after all has almost 1200 functions, macros, and variables declared
 | in over 80 header files), so I'm looking at various other Schemes
 | to see which parts of Posix they provide.  Similarly, WG2 will not
 | have a complete socket interface, but will be providing support for
 | TCP and UDP clients and servers (you can see my UDP proposal at
 | http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan; it is
 | slightly more convenient than raw Posix but not fundamentally
 | different).

Exposing port-numbers to the programmer leads to resource leaks
(orphaned ports).

The SCM socket library is a complete socket interface overloading
ports.  Socket ports, like file ports, are subject to garbage
collection.

<http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/scm_5.html#SEC92>

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports