On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:40:54 +0300, Vladimir Panteleev
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:52:02 +0300, David Nadlinger <[email protected]>
wrote:
Which kind of »provided details« would be interesting for you?
Something like this post, thanks.
If not in the standard library, where else? Granted, the difference is
probably only going to cause problems in unit tests (since actual
programs shouldn't rely on the exact socket timings anyway), but
pushing the burden of writing platform-specific workaround codeto the
std.socket users doesn't seem like a good solution to me either.
The obvious problem with such hacks is forward-compatibility - the
problem might be fixed in Windows 8/9/etc. and no one might notice. I
guess it wouldn't be hard to add an unit test for this.
Then, there's the question of expectations. For example, someone porting
their code from another language might already account for this oddity,
which would cause timeouts to be off 500ms in the other direction. Does
any other language's standard library do something like this?
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I do
think that if the hack is left in, it should be well-documented and its
necessity be easily verifiable.
https://github.com/CyberShadow/phobos/commit/89feff70e2c8ae68d7efd8a2fb7edd2acb9ea765
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:[email protected]
