Chris Angelico wrote: >On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke <e...@laramies.com> wrote: >> I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
>Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that >nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version of >the API do you want? Dedicated functions for each job, or a thin >wrapper around setsockopt() itself? What about: a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt(). b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used. -- Stephen.
