Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

More advocacy for "port-real-fd" hga@xxxxxx (07 Sep 2020 15:52 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Shiro Kawai (07 Sep 2020 20:29 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Lassi Kortela (10 Sep 2020 16:21 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Lassi Kortela (10 Sep 2020 16:29 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Marc Nieper-Wi├čkirchen (10 Sep 2020 16:30 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Lassi Kortela (10 Sep 2020 16:35 UTC)
Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" hga@xxxxxx (10 Sep 2020 16:49 UTC)

Re: More advocacy for "port-real-fd" Lassi Kortela 10 Sep 2020 16:29 UTC

IMHO the names `port->fd` and `port-internal-fd` are slightly
misleading, though the functionality is good.

The name `port->fd` doesn't obviously say that it creates a copy of the
fd. RnRS has procedures named like `list-copy` and `string-copy` which
create copies of things. Common Lisp has `copy-list`, `copy-seq`, etc.
Calling it `file-descriptor-copy` or `copy-file-descriptor` would match
these known names.

`port-internal-fd` is basically right, but the word `internal` may be
superfluous. `port-fd` or `port-file-descriptor` would say as much. Unix
users will understand that most ports have an underlying fd. If the
intent of `internal` is to say "danger, think twice before using", using
a longer name would probably serve the same purpose?