Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Sebastien Marie <xxxxxx@online.fr>:

[...]

> I am a bit shared. I understand that having proper "current working directory"
> based on parameter-like semantic, and having it per thread could be a good
> thing. But SRFI 170 is about "POSIX API", and I would expect the standard
> behaviour found in C world, where getcwd() is a per-process property (but I
> didn't found formal definition of cwd as process property in Posix definition).
>
> At minima, the direct reference about getcwd() and chdir() should be avoided,
> and the difference with them properly documented.
>
> The same reasoning could be done about umask (but here, Posix is explicitly
> saying that it is a property of the process).

What about thinking of SRFI 170 as the low-level bare-metal interface
mimicking C/POSIX as much as possible? On top of that, a more
Schemely-SRFI could be layered, in which the current working directory
is a parameter object. I agree that the per-thread semantics are more
sound.

Marc