> that said -- I sincerely do not see the point you are trying to make,
> because I cannot understand what you mean by `a random proc pointer'.
> Could you please try to explain your point again, without the
> reference to `a random proc pointer''? Or at least explain what you
> mean by that?

because a caller doesn't know for what so_send will use the proc pointer
as Matthias pointed, it can't decide which proc pointer to pass.
i called it as 'a random proc pointer'.
(probably 'a pointer to a random proc' is more clear.)

> If your point is that using `curproc' is somehow cleaner,

no.

YAMAMOTO Takashi