On 2024-01-24 11:26:56 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > The patch looks great (and very useful) to me, modulo one issue: > > > -SCM_API SCM scm_copy_file (SCM oldfile, SCM newfile); > > +SCM_API SCM scm_copy_file (SCM oldfile, SCM newfile, SCM rest); > > Since this is a public interface, we cannot change this function’s > signature during the 3.0 stable series. > > Thus, I would suggest keeping the public ‘scm_copy_file’ unchanged and > internally having a three-argument variant. The Scheme-level > ‘copy-file’ would map to that three-argument variant. (See how > ‘scm_pipe’ and ‘scm accept’ as examples.) That is a very good point, which I did not realize at all. Thanks to the examples you provided, it was not that hard to do (well, assuming I did it right). > Could you send an updated patch? Done. However now that I read it after myself, I overlooked this occurrence of scm_copy_file in the commit message: This commit adds support for this feature into our copy-file (scm_copy_file) procedure. Same as `cp', it defaults to So I just sent v3 right after v2, sorry for the noise, should have been more careful. > > BTW, copyright assignment to the FSF is now optional but encouraged. > Please see > . Since it is optional, I will currently opt into not doing the assignment, I do not like the concept that much. I will try to find time to actually form an opinion based on facts. Have a nice day, Tomas -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.