On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Thomas Rodgers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any opinion on a corresponding zmq_msg_set() constant where a value of 0, > forces (only) a shared message to be deep copied "under the hood" and clears > the shared flag bit? It is not strictly necessary for my purposes, any > other value than zero is nonsense. Doesn't look nice IMO. If you actually need to solve this problem, an explicit method like zmq_msg_deref() would be cleaner. However since it's not solving a real problem, you shouldn't make it. > Not to cross the streams too much, but digging through msg.cpp it seems > there a few cases with message accessors which return EINVAL that also to > fall into the same category of incorrect usage that you recently added > "militant" asserts for in socket options. Yes, that's nice. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
