|
| 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