Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 hga@xxxxxx 12 Sep 2020 13:09 UTC
> From: "Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> > Date: Saturday, September 12, 2020 8:04 AM > > Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > >> I agree that a fdo-internal-fd is a Good Thing, with the same >> warnings as port-internal-fdo, and I have added it for the benefit >> of other SRFIs. > > What do you mean by "for the benefit of other SRFIs" exactly? If just > for the benefit of implementing them, exposing them to the > user-visible API doesn't look right. Or is a consumer of the final set > of SRFIs expected to call these procedures? Not John, but as I see it, if your SRFI 170 emits FDOs that are opaque disjoint type instead of integers, and you must assume it does for a portable SRFI, then you must convert FODs to integers for when you need the real file descriptor. - Harold