On 6/25/06, I wrote:
What I'm proposing is to make SocketOption a proper ADT and change get- and setSocketOption to functions that take type constructors instead of tags as arguments, i.e.
getSocketOption :: Socket -> (a -> SocketOption) -> IO a setSocketOption :: Socket -> (a -> SocketOption) -> a -> IO ()
It should be noted that while the patch defines an ADT, it does sort of abuse it by providing an interface that uses the constructors in a tag-like manner. I did this for two reasons, first, it saves a bunch of code, and second, it mimics the old interface very closely. Passing a non-constructor argument will lead to weird results, but as far as I can see, nothing truly bad happens, no memory corruption at least. I could easily be persuaded to actually make the interface look like this: getSocketOption :: Socket -> SocketOption -> IO SocketOption setSocketOption :: Socket -> SocketOption -> IO () (getSocketOption would fill in the value in SocketOption with the actual value, that is the parameter would act as a template) This increases safety, but it comes at a cost in code size (with ugly #ifdefs), unless I'm missing something. I'd like to avoid creating a second ADT for queries or separate functions for each of the options. Bertram