From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#18592: FFI should have portable access to =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98errno=E2=80=99?= Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:49:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20160105074924.GA23165@tuxteam.de> References: <87fvf8oocf.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> <87h9vmy0zw.fsf@gnu.org> <87twzgeh3c.fsf@yeeloong.lan> <87r3uko4c9.fsf@gnu.org> <1451565229.3594.59.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <1451909046.3594.135.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <8760z9gw7o.fsf@netris.org> <1451934872.3594.150.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451982324 16057 80.91.229.3 (5 Jan 2016 08:25:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:25:24 +0000 (UTC) To: 18592@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 05 09:25:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvZ-00007L-17 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:25:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48610 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvU-0001gW-Sf for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:25:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41769) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvR-0001gH-FE for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:25:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvO-0000jh-8n for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:25:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvO-0000jd-5E for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:25:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMvO-0000sh-1k for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:25:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18592 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guile@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.14519822613333 (code B ref -1); Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Jan 2016 08:24:21 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38098 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMuj-0000rh-Ho for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50706) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMuh-0000rU-Ab for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMub-0000bk-6m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:14 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38463) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMub-0000bg-3P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41676) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMua-0001eR-1T for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMuW-0000bN-SL for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:45631 helo=tomasium.tuxteam.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMuW-0000bI-Lu for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:24:08 -0500 Original-Received: from tomas by tomasium.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1aGMMu-00066K-5r for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:49:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:7925 Archived-At: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:24:35AM +0800, Chaos Eternal wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > > Hi Mark! > > Thanks for all the advices. > > > > Here's the new patch according to your advices. > > Include: > > 1. Added new procedure pointer->procedure-with-errno with > > #:return-errno? > > > > Question: Should we make #:return-errno? true in default? This would > > make the name *-with-errno more reasonable. At present, it's false in > > default. Sorry for intervening from the peanut gallery, but if I understood Mark correctly, he only was proposing to introduce a second function for the C API (to keep backward compatibility at the linking-to-C level). At the Guile source level, I guess all can be subsumed under one function. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlaLdYQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYBUQCfXIbqu8h/fhM/PyM9NXI1tR9M thIAnjSo00Ts4P39cTdwGOIIXIzELU9A =cCFX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----