On 2001-03-01 05:14:18, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds pretty good. I'll try and look at the code this weekend. Some
of the code is really ugly especially the legacy code.
When you say there are places which need a FILE * do you mean they just
need to check the id and
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 05:12:55PM +, Wez Furlong wrote:
I think what we need depends on how far we are willing to go to make
the codebase nicer. Andi Gutmans suggested that it would be nice
to nuke all the checks for sockets in the code; depending on how far
we go towards that ideal, we
This sounds pretty good. I'll try and look at the code this weekend. Some
of the code is really ugly especially the legacy code.
When you say there are places which need a FILE * do you mean they just
need to check the id and check that it's a FILE * or do they convert
descriptors to FILE *
Too early in the morning. I just remembered fdopen() :)
Andi
At 07:14 AM 3/1/2001 +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
This sounds pretty good. I'll try and look at the code this weekend. Some
of the code is really ugly especially the legacy code.
When you say there are places which need a FILE * do you
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:14:18AM +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
This sounds pretty good. I'll try and look at the code this weekend. Some
of the code is really ugly especially the legacy code.
Yes, I like it too, and it is something I've been halfway thinking of
myself because of IPv6. Some of
On 2001-02-27 06:53:05, Stig Venaas wrote:
But with for instance IPv6, you won't know what socket you need until
you're done with the resolving. That's why hostconnect() is like it
is. It even needs to connect before it knows what socket to use. That
I must have missed hostconnect(). I
