From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: request for review: Doing direct file I/O in Emacs Lisp Date: 10 May 2004 13:22:21 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87llk0td0p.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> References: <87pt9cuzyo.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084210763 16676 80.91.224.253 (10 May 2004 17:39:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon May 10 19:39:07 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BNEdQ-0008Er-00 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:32:12 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BNEdP-0006ag-00 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:32:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BNEZU-0005Lb-Bk for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:28:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BNEVj-0004bJ-9J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:24:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BNEVC-0004Nr-EM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:24:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.25] (helo=tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BNEU0-0003u2-Lm; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:22:28 -0400 Original-Received: from alfajor ([67.68.218.161]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040510172225.BTML8530.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor>; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:22:25 -0400 Original-Received: by alfajor (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B3E2D73CE; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:23051 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:23051 >> >> The two don't have to be competing. Instead I expect they'd be >> >> used together (by extending your proposal to allow a file-handle >> >> as "output port"). >> > There is not much of an incentive to have explicit file handles if >> > you can establish all of the necessary redirections without them. >> >> Piping the output of one process to the input of another, maybe? > Academical right now. You know the complicated procedure of pipe(2), > fork, selective closes and/or dup2 calls needed to properly create a > working pipeline? I am afraid that "file-handle" does not buy us > that at all. Obviously, John's code won't give us pipes for free. But without both file handles and your suggested changes, I don't see how we'll ever get eshell to fully support pipes. I.e. it's not sufficient but it's necessary. Stefan