Chris Angelico wrote: >> 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! :) Yes, but be reluctant in adding convenience functions (only for the real common ones), and be comprehensive in the setsockopt interface. -- Stephen.
