On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:47 AM Duy Nguyen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

Are there good reasons to? I think these are mostly to prevent races
or maybe when path resolution becomes too expensive. I don't see a
typical scheme program needing any of those. In both cases, falling
back to C via FFI may be a safer bet even if it's not portable.

I agree, and these things are Posix so portability shouldn't be an issue.  Except to @#$* Windows, of course.  Hopefully in a few years we can start assuming that everyone who uses our favorite weird programming language has WSL2.

The SRFI should probably make clear about PATH_MAX restriction if we
choose to support this. Maybe if "unlimited-path" feature is supported
by a Scheme implementation, then the user does not have to care about
PATH_MAX. Otherwise it's up to the user to handle ENAMETOOLONG 

SRFIs don't usually contain implementation advice like this, but it could be put into a HACKING file in the repo.

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound free-range chickens (except they have
teeth, arms instead of wings, and dinosaurlike tails).  --Elyse Grasso