Hi Ludo,

I have processed your feedback in this version of the patch.

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Hi Rutger!
>
>> ...
> Nice!  That’s definitely very useful to have.  We’ll need to check what
> Andy thinks, but I think it can be added in the 3.0 series.
>
>
>> ...
> Could you mention functions renamed/removed here?  The ChangeLog format
> is about boringly listing all the language-entity-level changes.  :-)
>
Done.
>
>> ...
> I guess you can remove the commented-out bits…
>
Yep.
>
>> ...
> … and this hunk, to minimize change.
>
Check.
>
>> ...
> I would not export ‘pipe->fdes’.  I’m not sure about exporting
> ‘piped-process’: it’s a bit low-level and we might want to reserve
> ourselves the possibility to change it, like this patch does actually.
>
> WDYT?
>
I agree.
>> ...
>
> Please wrap lines to 80 chars.
>
Taken care of.
>
>> ...
>
> I suggest using ‘string=?’ above instead of ‘equal?’.  Also, could you
> add a docstring?
>
Yes and yes.
>
>> ...
>
> Perhaps s/procs/commands/ would be clearer?  Also, @var{commands}
> instead of @code.
>
Yep.
>
> Could you also add an entry in doc/ref/*.texi, in the “Pipes” node,
> perhaps with one of the examples you gave?
>
Wrote a new example. WDYT?
>
>> ...
>
> Please move these to the top-level ‘define-module’ form.
>
Done.
>
> One last thing: we’d need you to assign copyright to the FSF for this.
> We can discuss it off-line if you want.
>
Can you help me there? I already have a verbal commitment from the
company, we just need to formalize it.
>
> Thank you for this great and long overdue addition!
>
Happy to add it.
>
> Ludo’.
>
Rutger