Brian Granger wrote: > Martin, > >> Yes. The field has to be there anyway. >> >> We just have to find some suitable name for the accessor function... >> >> bool zmq_msg_end (zmq_msg_t *msg); > > While this may not be possible in C/C++, in Python, I would be tempted > to hide the message group > stuff in send/recv: > > sock.send([msg1, msg2, msg3]) > > On the other side: > > messages = sock.recv()
One thing to be considered is keeping the case of single-part message as simple as possible (i.e. as simple as it is now) given that this will be the case in 99 times of 100. message = sock.recv() [0] just doesn't look right. One additional issue to think about: In C API sending a multipart message involves passing a flag to send function, while receiving a multipart message requires checking a flag on message itself. That seems somewhat incoherent. Is there a better way? Is there a better way wthout making the API sucky? Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
