[Python-Dev] Heads up: socket.connect() breakage ahead

bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:53:01 -0500 (EST)

>>>>> "GvR" == Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:

    GvR> You probably meant:

    |   sock.connect(addr)
    |   sock.connect(host, port)
    |   sock.connect((host, port))

    GvR> since (host, port) is equivalent to (addr).

Doh, yes. :)

    GvR> Fred typically directs latex2html to break all sections
    GvR> apart.  It's in the previous section:

I know, I was being purposefully dense for effect :)  Fred, is there
some way to make the html contain a link to the previous section for
the "see above" text?  That would solve the problem I think.

    GvR> This also explains the reason for requiring a single
    GvR> argument: when using AF_UNIX, the second argument makes no
    GvR> sense!

    GvR> Frankly, I'm not sure what do here -- it's more correct to
    GvR> require a single address argument always, but it's more
    GvR> convenient to allow two sometimes.

    GvR> Note that sendto(data, addr) only accepts the tuple form: you
    GvR> cannot write sendto(data, host, port).

Hmm, that /does/ complicate things -- it makes explaining the API more
difficult.  Still, in this case I think I'd lean toward liberal
acceptance of input parameters. :)