From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 11 04:37:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA24710 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 04:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA24705 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 04:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from erlenstar.demon.co.uk ([194.222.144.22]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0623799; 11 May 97 12:23 BST Received: (from andrew@localhost) by erlenstar.demon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA08822; Sun, 11 May 1997 12:22:30 +0100 (BST) To: David Nugent Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: socketpair() References: <199705110829.SAA04202@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> From: Andrew Gierth In-Reply-To: David Nugent's message of Sun, 11 May 1997 18:29:43 +1000 X-Mayan-Date: Long count = 12.19.4.2.15; tzolkin = 6 Men; haab = 13 Uo X-Attribution: AG Date: 11 May 1997 12:22:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87iv0qp822.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>>>> "David" == David Nugent writes: >> I think socketpair gives you bidirectional pipes... David> pipe() should too, I think. I don't. Few uses of pipe() really benefit from bidirectional pipes; they are not standard, and assuming bidirectionality is going to give you a major portability headache. David> I've never come across an implementation that doesn't. Or, at David> least it doesn't seem to matter which returned handle you use David> for reading and which for writing. You must lead a very sheltered life. Other than SVR4, bidirectionality seems to be the exception, not the rule. -- Andrew. comp.unix.programmer FAQ: see