On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brian Ford wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Peter Stephens wrote:
I have thought about your suggestion and it makes a lot of sense.
It seems like your suggestion would be very portable. A good suggestion and the most likely route for me at this point.
Not to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are going to a lot of effort to poorly recreate poll/select?
Why? If you are doing sequential, non multi-plexed, reads why do poll or select? Sitting in read is more optimal and the read should return either data or an error. The flaw in recv is that it returns a non-error non-data status. Perhaps it would be better to switch to using read() instead of recv?
This is really getting off-topic, though.
Yes. Isn't it fun ?-)
-- Brian Ford
-- Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
