Re: cvs socket extension

> > The new version (renamed, cleaned up) is fairly new, so it should be fine > > to do that. > > While we're at it, wouldn't it be more intuitiv to modify the > socket_fd_*() calls to accept the fd_set resource as first > parameter and the fd to add or remove as second parameter ? > No problem with that request. I'll still get them confused though. :) > For socket_fd_set() I'ld also vote to let the second parameter be > a single socket or an array of sockets (when you're dealing with > many connection you're likely holding them in an array than in > separate vars); same for socket_fd_clear(). Maybe, but I haven't > thought more about it, it would make sense for _isset() [after > writing this sentence I think not :) ]. *_set() and *_clear() it makes sense to accept an array for. *_isset(), OTOH, it doesn't. "Oh, I want to know if any of the fds 5, 6, 7, or 8 are set"... somehow that doesn't seem quite kosher. :) Chris