Hi!

On 11/02/2010 04:55 AM, 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?
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas

Well, when I wrote the current version I think I decided against it 
since I did not want any "inherited bugs" so to speak. If a clean and 
useful inheritance is possible, then sure. The other reason it might be 
unwise is that it does both input and output - but of course that does 
not mean a useful inheritance is possible anyway.

regards, Göran