On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:22:43PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:54:59PM -0600, Mark Hills wrote: > >> It does expect the address to be in network byte order instead of host > >> byte order, which is usually done using htons and htonl. This seems to > >> do what you want (running SUSE 10.1 on an Intel box): > > > > Who agrees with me that it would be nice if network libraries used host > > byte order in their interface? Or at least they could use an abstract > > data type, whose byte order would be unobservable. > > Why is this trapdoor present in the C library?
I don't know. Maybe for efficiency? Best regards Tomasz _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
