send_multipart + recv_multipart are clearly matched, while send vs recv_multipart are not. Also this is how pyzmq does it, which is a small plus. Regardless of the name for send, the functionality is useful.

Actually it would probably be better to define send_multipart(socket::Socket, parts::AbstractArray) or send_multipart(socket::Socket, parts::AbstractArray{String}).

@timdonegan, if you're still interested in this would you have time to rebase and finish it? Otherwise I'm happy to give it a shot. My apologies for taking a literal decade to respond 😳

I would be interested in the implementation of the receive_multipart! That's very useful!

May I nerd-snipe you into finishing it? 😉 I think the implementation in this PR looks good, the only things you'd have to do are:

• Change send_multipart()'s signature to send_multipart(socket::Socket, parts::AbstractVector). We can rely on dispatch to do the right thing.
• Add docstrings and tests for the new functions.

Closing in favour of #253.