Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com>:

> > I would love to see a higher-level abstraction of this SRFI before we
> > talk about voting any of them into R7RS (large). For a language
> > standard that should be appliable to general (hosted) systems, SRFI
> > 170 looks too much tied to POSIX in some regards. And even on a POSIX
> > system, a 1:1 mapping is hard to realize as the discussions have shown
> > (threads are not 1:1, the errno is unreliable, the current umask and
> > the current path can only be used with caveats).
>
> Quibble, errno can be made reliable, you just have to do the work
> "under the table" at the C level, for example always immediately save
> a copy after making a POSIX call, then make it available to your error
> handling code if in fact an error occurred.

Sure, this is possible. What I meant is that a procedure (errno)
returning the current errno makes sense in a C program, but doesn't
make sense in a Scheme program.