Proposal: ByteString based datagram communication (Ticket #1238 )

[Robert Marlow]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:50 -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> That's fair enough, but this kind of rationale belongs in the header of 
> the patch that makes that change, so that people won't be scratching 
> their heads, wondering what happened.

Oh! Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.


> The description of the patch says that it does four different things. 
> That's your cue :-)

Oh I see what you mean. They're all related to the same change. I've
changed the patch header to try to explain that too. The overall goal of
fixing up sendTo / recvFrom in Network is simpler to achieve with the
listed changes. Given those additional changes wouldn't be terribly
important if it weren't for the the implementation of datagram
communication in Network, I don't think it's a good idea to split the
patch up.


-- 
Robert Marlow
MITS Co-operative Limited
http://www.mits.coop/