Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in connect #44388

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 15, 2017

Conversation

tbu-
Copy link
Contributor

@tbu- tbu- commented Sep 7, 2017

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @BurntSushi

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Sep 7, 2017
/// Unlike in the TCP case, passing an array of addresses to the `connect`
/// function of a UDP socket is not a useful thing to do: The OS will be
/// unable to determine whether something is listening on the remote
/// address without the application sending data.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

since this is no longer associated with an example, seems like we can move this paragraph above the # Examples heading. what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My rationale for leaving it there was that this explanation is in a similar spot for the other methods and also in TcpStream. But I guess I can move it up.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, the text is already up there. It's just summarized in the examples because there's usually an example of using multiple addresses.

@frewsxcv
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 10, 2017

📌 Commit b4d0f61 has been approved by frewsxcv

frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2017
…=frewsxcv

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in `connect`

CC @frewsxcv rust-lang#22569 rust-lang#44209
frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2017
…=frewsxcv

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in `connect`

CC @frewsxcv rust-lang#22569 rust-lang#44209
@BurntSushi
Copy link
Member

This seems fine to me. It might be worth noting that these docs appear to be strengthening the contract of connect to say in more detail what's actually going on behind the curtain. But it still seems reasonable to me!

@BurntSushi BurntSushi added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 11, 2017
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 13, 2017
…=frewsxcv

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in `connect`

CC @frewsxcv rust-lang#22569 rust-lang#44209
frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2017
…=frewsxcv

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in `connect`

CC @frewsxcv rust-lang#22569 rust-lang#44209
frewsxcv added a commit to frewsxcv/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2017
…=frewsxcv

Clarify the behavior of UDP sockets wrt. multiple addresses in `connect`

CC @frewsxcv rust-lang#22569 rust-lang#44209
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2017
@bors bors merged commit b4d0f61 into rust-lang:master Sep 15, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants