Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master

Show/hide message thread

Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 13:35 UTC)

Re: Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 13:54 UTC)

Re: Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 16:20 UTC)

Re: Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 17:19 UTC)

Re: Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 18:05 UTC)

Re: Just pushed a new update to johnwcowan repo Lassi Kortela (26 Aug 2019 18:11 UTC)

Ports as an argument to file-info in the context of a required chase?/follow? hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 18:21 UTC)

Re: Ports as an argument to file-info in the context of a required chase?/follow? John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 18:35 UTC)

Re: Ports as an argument to file-info in the context of a required chase?/follow? hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 18:49 UTC)

Assorted remarks on file procedures Lassi Kortela (26 Aug 2019 15:17 UTC)

Re: Assorted remarks on file procedures hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 17:07 UTC)

Re: Assorted remarks on file procedures John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 20:36 UTC)

Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master Lassi Kortela (26 Aug 2019 17:26 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 18:06 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 18:12 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 18:22 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master hga@xxxxxx (26 Aug 2019 18:33 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master John Cowan (26 Aug 2019 18:40 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master Lassi Kortela (26 Aug 2019 18:45 UTC)

Re: Real and effective uid/gid procedures in git master Lassi Kortela 26 Aug 2019 18:45 UTC

>>     The user-effective-uid/-gid procedures were removed a while ago, due
>>     to their belonging to a process SRFI, failing the 80/20 rule, and/or
>>     encouraging unsafe programming.

> I don't think it's too important, but since it's cheap, let's restore it.

I think those should be in some SRFI. No strong opinion on which one.