On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 05:44:39PM +0200, IOhannes m zm?lnig wrote: > > > Am 8. Juni 2021 17:05:13 MESZ schrieb Miller Puckette via Pd-list > <pd-list@lists.iem.at>: > >P.S. maybe 'sendto' would be clearer - 'to' could be misunderstood as > >just setting > >a return port/addr for a later 'send' (which I think would make > >netreceive -u > >unnecessarily stateful). > > i think 'sendto' only makes sense as [sendto example.com 6000 10 20( > that is: specifying both target and data in a single message (as the name is > so close to 'send'). > I think this is what you want to do anyhow. > > I wonder about efficiency though: each 'sendto' would trigger a host lookup, > which is probably cached by the OS, but even so might still be rather costy. > > mfg.fsd.sgj > IOhannes > I think usually you'd use this for replying to incoming messages in which case you'd already have the IP addr. And if you do indeed have a hostname, I think it would be unwise to cache the IP adress resolution in the application (it might change).
Yes, I was imagining "sendto" combining port, address, and message all in one. cheers M _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list