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 16:44 UTC

> The working set can also refer to the set of pages that need to be
> kept in main memory, or in the bad old days you'd thrash your hard
> disk(s), for UNIX your swap partition(s).  Back when memory was dear,
> drawing horizontal lines at the bottom of your screen to signal if
> your process was running, paging, or for Lisp Machines, GCing was
> comforting and/or annoying feedback.

Huh, that must have been fun! Of course, in 2020 we still don't have
enough free RAM since extra browser tabs tend to gobble it up :)

> I agree with dropping "working" from the SFRI.

Thanks!

> Still, I continue to quibble about removing the "set-" uniformity of
> the API.  Am I correct in understanding the motivation to do this is a
> Scheme implementation performance hack of using parameter objects...??

Yes, it's due to the parameter objects. But they are not so much a
performance hack as a way to clarify semantics in multi-threaded
programs. If the current directory is process-wide, any thread can in
principle change it from underneath the other threads at any time,
invalidating their assumptions about what the cwd is.

By contrast, a particular thread can bind the parameter so that the
binding is only visible in that thread. Other threads can (and should)
have their own independent bindings. If you're familiar with Common
Lisp, it's like using dynamic variables (aka special variables), i.e.
the *variables-with-the-stars-around-their-name* over there.

> Another option is removing "set-" as much as possible from the API,
> but there's no obvious way to do that for set-file-mode/-owner/-group,
> because you *get* those values using a single call to file-info, which
> calls POSIX stat and returns a record mirroring stat's struct.

Good point. Hmm, it's a difficult choice. At least since those modes
have to do with files instead of the running process, parameter objects
would make no sense. So there are no parameters with which to be
symmetrical (unless we count the parameters for the process state... "a
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin", etc.)

>> the process umask is the law and the per-thread umask is just something extra
>
> Not the law if the thread changes the per process umask, rather, a
> hierarchy.

Well put.

> We could "make it the law" as I previously proposed by not
> letting it be widened, or maybe that would be better put in a security
> SRFI, to possibly include things like OpenBSD's pledge, as in "I pledge
> not to do X, Y, and Z in the future".

That's not really possible in implementations that have a FFI. In
general, leaving all security stuff to the OS is safest. (And trying to
fix an insecure OS in a language is generally hopeless, save for
techniques that reduce bugs like GC.)

>> Initializing the Scheme umask to 0 as you suggest would make it so that
>> only the process umask is in effect by default. That seems reasonable.
>
> That works, but makes accidents more likely in the per thread code.

That's remedied if new threads initially inherit the umask (and cwd) of
the thread that spawned them.