Re: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

Heya :)

On Tue 09 Mar 2021 22:47, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:

> On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 21:36 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> Hi :)  Sure, would be happy to accept a patch for these.
> See <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46220>
> and messages above.  I'll look at updating NEWS and the manual
> later.

Great!

I agree it's weird that O_NOTRANS is defined but 0 on GNU/Linux.
Perhaps better not to define it if it's zero?  Dunno tho.

>>   It's adding
>> more definitions to the base environment, which is usually a negative,
>> but we'll have to find some kind of module solution for all of these
>> flags at some point.
>
> Would defining O_* in a new module (ice-9 open-flags)
> (or the existing module (ice-9 posix) maybe?) be acceptable?
> Or alternatively, a syntax (open-flag SYMBOL) that expands to
> the flag's value --

Let's punt for now :)

>>   If you do send a patch, please update the manual
>> and NEWS also.
>
> The manual only documents O_RDONLY, O_WRONLY, O_RDWR,
> O_APPEND and O_CREAT currently, and points the reader
> at glibc's manual for additional flags.

Ah yes.  Probably the flags (possibly) supported by Guile should be in
the manual.  Document them if you have a moment? :)  Otherwise just
document the new ones.

Andy