Having used it and found the experience non-punitive, I'll say that Aubrey's level of interface is extremely easy to use, and does the right thing.
It is reasonable to specify a *subset *of Posix; it is not reasonable to specify a simplification which cannot be used except in toy programs. Thomas On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Aubrey Jaffer <[email protected]> wrote: > | 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
