[stingraycharles]

So UdpSocket should really be called DatagramSocket, UDP being the protocol that operates on these datagrams?

Surprising that they got such a fundamental thing wrong.

[krater23]

That happens when someones learning project ("I rewrite a library in the new language I want to learn") ends up in productive code.

[IshKebab]

This is in the standard library; it's not a learning project. And it also isn't even incorrect - see erk__'s comment.

Rust is an excellent language and fully capable of production use.

[Sharlin]

It's not, it's the `socket2` library. The standard sockets don't allow (ab)using actual `UdpSocket`s as a different kind of datagram socket.

[knorker]

Sure it does.

    let f = std::fs::File::open("/dev/null").unwrap();
    let f: std::os::fd::OwnedFd = f.into();
    let socket: std::net::UdpSocket = f.into();

This is really no different. In this example it's not even a socket.

[IshKebab]

We're talking about UdpSocket: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/net/struct.UdpSocket.ht...

[Sharlin]

Yes, I know, but the point is that the standard UdpSocket is correctly named as it doesn’t represent any other datagram socket. Uh, we’re pribably in agreement here actually.

[IshKebab]

Yeah exactly! :-D