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 23:57 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 21:42 UTC
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O John Cowan 23 Apr 2020 03:37 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 10:53 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 11:43 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 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 14:06 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 15:43 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 15:40 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 11:38 UTC
Re: Normalizing the current directory Marc Feeley 23 Apr 2020 11:55 UTC
Re: Normalizing the current directory Lassi Kortela 23 Apr 2020 12:09 UTC
Using paths that are searchable but not completely readable hga@xxxxxx 23 Apr 2020 12:29 UTC
Per-thread working directory and umask proposal John Cowan 23 Apr 2020 14:13 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 16:13 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 22:45 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 00:41 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 16:20 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 01:41 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

Re: current-umask Lassi Kortela 29 Apr 2020 13:25 UTC

>> * current-directory (per-thread parameter)
>> * os-current-directory (procedure - 0 args = getter, 1 arg = setter)
>>
>> * current-umask (per-thread parameter)
>> * os-[current-]umask (procedure - 0 args = getter, 1 arg = setter)
>
> This works for me, but while using argument count would keep the
> number of procedures the same, we're already using "set-*" as a convention
> for changing state.

It's true that set-* is more obvious, but parameter objects (SRFI 39)
work such that the setter is the same as the getter. Since there seems
to be agreement that the current directory should be implementable as a
thread-local parameter, using a unified getter/setter procedure would be
consistent with that.

> I don't see see any need to include "current" in the umask procedure
> names, current is implied, pretty much implied for all procedures like
> this.

Yeah, current-umask is a bit wordy. It would just be consistent with the
others. Perhaps the "current" is superfluous.

> I'm not sure about changing working-directory to
> current-directory, the underlying POSIX procedure wide call getcwd
> uses both....  Using both could be better, but if not that, I'd prefer
> keeping working-directory.

My argument is that all the other process/thread state stuff is called
"current". The working directory is the only one that is called a
"working" anything. (Does this imply everything else is "lazy"? :)

Current-working would be two words for the same thing. "Working" in Unix
doesn't refer to any other concept and is just a synonym for "current"
AFAIK. The only other thing I can think of is "working set" and that's
about CPU caches IIRC.

>> IMHO "umask" is a bit cryptic and not applicable outside Unix. Could it
>> be "unix-mask" instead, or simply "file-mask", "file-mode-mask",
>> "file-permission-mask" or something? What's the equivalent on Windows?
>
> Well, this is a *POSIX* API, and as you noted in other emails, there's
> no real mapping of POSIX's very simple permissions bits model to Windows.

True.

> Plus we'd expect some number of users of this API to already know
> "umask", and I don't think the u mapps to UNIX.

True as well. "u" probably means "user":
<https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/583296/what-does-the-letter-u-mean-in-umask>.

But "unix" would make sense since the concept is only applicable under
Unix. Then again, John prefers "posix" instead of "unix". So it could be
"posix-mask" as well.

> The meaning of the
> bits is also inverted compared to the masks in file-info:mode and
> set-file-mode, a 1 in the umask means "no you can't" create a file
> with that bit, a 1 in the modes means "yes I am" set.
It's inverted precisely because it's a mask for those other ones :)