Re: git push weird?

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

Hi,

On Tue 15 Jun 2010 23:56, Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> writes:

> () Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
> () Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:07:47 +0200
>
>    Just for readability I have rebased the commits. The gnulib commit will
>    get overwritten at the next gnulib import. GUILE_CONFIG_SCRIPT is fine.
>
> OK, thanks for cleaning up my mess.

No prob. FWIW what happened was that Ludovic and I both responded and
reverted at the same time; amusing. We worked it out on IRC in the end.
His comments are still valid, of course.

>    If you really think that 'tmpfile is the right thing, let's talk about
>    it :)
>
> One way to rationalize 'tmpfile is to consider #f to denote "invalid", in
> which case #f for the ‘tmpfile’ (the port-returning proc) does not
> ring true.

I don't think that #f is invalid; it's simply "no file name available",
which is true in this case.

> On the other hand, until another file-port with non-string filename type
> rears, i have no problem mentally keeping track of:
>
>    (port-filename P) => 'tmpfile
>
>          ===
>
>    (and (file-port? P) (not (port-filename P)))

I'm definitely on the side of the curious peoples of the world, but I
also have to maintain this thing :P Can you give a use case for when you
want to know if a port is a tmpfile?

> The bigger question is (to touch upon a past discussion) the separation of
> "file name" into "directory component + base name".  If that ever comes to
> pass (fundamentally), i think ‘port-filename’ won't mind transparently
> passing the (richer) information to the user, with rv type most likely in
> the set {#f, string, location (d+b)}, with some distinguished locations
> symbolic.  Then we can welcome the return of 'tmpfile.

Perhaps. I don't think we really have filename handling right yet.
Definitely something to consider in that context :)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/