Re: [Chicken-users] chickenlib

[Perry E. Metzger]

address@hidden writes:
> Hi all. I've been revising socket.scm et al. recently, and I've just
> uploaded a snapshot which replaces the old versions of socket.scm
> etc. I had available.

Very cool!

A few notes from going through your code:

1) I think "bind-unix", "bind-inet" etc. are mistakes. In the manner
   of Scsh's interface, things that map more straightforwardly into
   the underlying Unix calls are likely of use. See:
   http://www.scsh.net/docu/html/man-Z-H-5.html#%_chap_4
   I think that some of the design choices in the Scsh interface are a
   mistake, but having a straightforward bind etc. is not.
2) It would be good to have abstract types that encapsulate a sockaddr
   style structure and functions to manipulate that. Similarly for
   things we might dub "inaddr4", "inaddr6", and "localaddr" (though
   perhaps we don't need the last as it is really just a string.)
   By doing this, we can handle the range of available calls more
   nicely. Scsh goes some of the way in this direction but not far
   enough.
3) I think the names should probably be simply the names of the
   underlying Unix system calls, which is mostly what you do, rather
   than the altered names in scsh.


-- 
Perry E. Metzger                address@hidden
--
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."