On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg <s...@cuci.nl> wrote: > 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.
aka "both"? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :) ChrisA
