> Seems that I've got the hang of complaining about libraries :)
> While working I noticed two things in there:
>
> 1) Using Socket.accept, it's not possible to find out the
> port-number the
> remote end is using. You have to work around this using
> SocketPrim.accept,
> though I consider this rather useful/important.
>
> How about changing Socket.accept from returning (Handle,Hostname) to
> (Handle,(Hostname,Port))?
I've no objection to this. Admittedly I go through SocketPrim most of the
time except for trivial examples.
Anyone else?
> 2) Is anyone actually using Socket.recvFrom? It must have
> been written for
> *some* purpose, but I can't see any earthly use [okay, I
> could if I'd want to,
> but this function is rather too specialised for a
> network-interface toolkit].
You're suggesting removing this function? Again, I've no objection (because
I don't use it :-) but it's harder to make a case for removing something
from a library. In this case, recvFrom is the dual of sendTo, so it at
least looks consistent. I agree it's hard to imagine a situation where you
might use it.
Cheers,
Simon
