10 Mar
2015
10 Mar
'15
5:22 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg srb@cuci.nl wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Arne Goedeke el@laramies.com wrote:
I think we should merge this, or at least a similar API. Any objections?
Haven't heard anyone else's views on this, which suggests that nobody's particularly bothered one way or the other. Which version of the API do you want? Dedicated functions for each job, or a thin wrapper around setsockopt() itself?
What about: a. A primary thin wrapper around setsockopt(). b. Some secondary convenience functions for people unfamiliar with setsockopt(2) only for those options which are commonly used.
aka "both"? Sure! Doesn't bother me! :)
ChrisA