| From: John Cowan <[email protected]> | Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:05:35 -0400 | | On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG | <[email protected]> wrote: | | > I would be happy if Scheme-2 said "this is how we map to Posix.1 | > facilities", and very unhappy if they started deciding what a good | > networking interface looks like. | | As chair of WG2, that is exactly what I expect to see happen. The | WG has rejected providing a complete interface to Posix (which | after all has almost 1200 functions, macros, and variables declared | in over 80 header files), so I'm looking at various other Schemes | to see which parts of Posix they provide. Similarly, WG2 will not | have a complete socket interface, but will be providing support for | TCP and UDP clients and servers (you can see my UDP proposal at | http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/DatagramChannelsCowan; it is | slightly more convenient than raw Posix but not fundamentally | different).
Exposing port-numbers to the programmer leads to resource leaks (orphaned ports). The SCM socket library is a complete socket interface overloading ports. Socket ports, like file ports, are subject to garbage collection. <http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/scm_5.html#SEC92> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
