Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 17:13 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 20:53 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 21:29 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 23:58 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:36 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:43 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 03:38 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:02 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:05 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Göran Weinholt
(23 Apr 2020 10:54 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:09 UTC)
|
Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:30 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:44 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:47 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:59 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 15:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 15:20 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:02 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:03 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:14 UTC)
|
current directory and openat() et al
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: current directory and openat() et al
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 13:56 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
Normalizing the current directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:39 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:55 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 12:10 UTC)
|
Using paths that are searchable but not completely readable
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 12:30 UTC)
|
Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 14:13 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Sebastien Marie
(23 Apr 2020 13:32 UTC)
|
Definition of working directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 13:51 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:07 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Sebastien Marie
(23 Apr 2020 15:31 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:24 UTC)
|
Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:38 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:48 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs hga@xxxxxx (23 Apr 2020 16:19 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 15:41 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:16 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:07 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 16:14 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 17:26 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 18:38 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(23 Apr 2020 22:17 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 08:43 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 11:37 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 12:22 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(24 Apr 2020 12:28 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(26 Apr 2020 09:19 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(27 Apr 2020 22:46 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(27 Apr 2020 23:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(28 Apr 2020 00:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(28 Apr 2020 00:56 UTC)
|
os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:23 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Duy Nguyen
(29 Apr 2020 09:28 UTC)
|
current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:43 UTC)
|
Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:47 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:49 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
John Cowan
(29 Apr 2020 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 13:14 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 13:25 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:31 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:45 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 14:12 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 16:21 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 04:02 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 02:49 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 06:12 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:19 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:53 UTC)
|
Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 12:14 UTC)
|
Re: Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 17:00 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
hga@xxxxxx
(28 Apr 2020 01:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(28 Apr 2020 01:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Apr 2020 07:11 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(30 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
> From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> > Date: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:38 AM > >> 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. > > I would tentatively advise against this since there would seem to be > very little difference between those low-level and high-level APIs. > > The low level is: > > - Convert Scheme strings and fixnums to C strings and integers > - Make the syscall > - C strings and integers back to Scheme strings and integers > - On error, either return errno as as fixnum or raise exception Requiring checks for return values is one of the things I most dislike about POSIX style APIs. > High level: > > - Same as low level > - Definitely raise exception on errno > - Definitely translate per-thread umasks and pathnames > - Not that many other differences? We avoid some footguns, one you strongly advocated was having directory listing procedures never return "." and "..", even the lowest level open-/read-/close-directory wrappers. John is planning to go much further with the processes SRFI which was punted for 170. And we provide some helper functions on top of the POSIX API, for things people are likely to want, like directory-files which returns all the files in a directory, and make-directory-files-generator for when you don't want them all in a list in one go. > So they sound almost the same. > > [ GNOME provides an example of what not to do. ] > > By contrast, OS operations that clearly compose several syscalls are > clearly at a higher level of abstraction and could benefit from > being in a separate SRFI. As of now, directory-files and make-directory-files-generator are examples that are in the SRFI. The terminal control procedures like with-raw-mode are an example of all of the above, they both provide safety as previously mentioned, and also make a number of system calls to for example get, set, and reset both an input and an output port. - Harold