On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Hi -
>
> I (accidentally) noticed that SocketStream isn't a subclass of Stream. Is 
> there any reason why this should remain true? It strikes me as odd as Stream 
> has very few requirements (basically #next, #nextPut:, and #atEnd) which are 
> trivially fulfilled by SocketStream. Anyone seeing a reason not to change 
> this?

It should also implement #contents, but that's trivial to do.


Levente

>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>