From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0728b52f51f685e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s52.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: copy constructor for sockets
References: <x7v3c5svfqc.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <l7Nrc.41912$gr.4073785@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.132.82
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1085251153 24.6.132.82 (Sat, 22 May 2004 18:39:13 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:39:13 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:39:13 GMT
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:780
Date: 2004-05-22T18:39:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

What happens when one of the copies is "closed" and then someone "writes"
on the other?  Or worse, is closed, then reopened with a different remote
connection.  A socket is in some ways like a pointer to a (remote) data
object - it's always living dangerously to have multiple independent
pointers to the same object.