Is IO::Socket::DWIM taken?
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:54:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> IO::Socket::TCP?
So what of Protocol => "udp" or even raw or any of the other IP
protocols besides TCP?
> IO::Socket::INETandINET6?
Rather unwieldy for a module that I hope ought to replace ::INET
--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
leo
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 02:58:36PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
> I currently don't have a good name for a module I'd like to write, ...
>
> We have IO::Socket::INET. It wraps PF_INET, thus maknig it IPv4 only.
>
> We have IO::Socket::INET6. It wraps either PF_INET or PF_INET6, despite
> its
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 02:58:36PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
> Can anyone suggest me a better module name for this?
Thoughts are congregating on IO::Socket::IP for this - any major
objections?
See also
http://leonerds-code.blogspot.com/2010/09/module-name-suggestions-proper-iosocket.ht
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
> >Can anyone suggest me a better module name for this?
>
> Honestly, the name I'd want on that module is IO::Socket::INET. Fix
> the whole problem, instead of just being the new best choice. (For
> everyone who bothers to notice, and
--As of September 6, 2010 2:58:36 PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans is alleged
to have said:
In order to provide an easy transition period, I'd also support
additional IO::Socket::INET options where they still make sense; e.g.
accepting {Local/Peer}Port as a synonym for {Local/Peer}Service. The
upsh
