From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: git push weird? Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:15:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87fx0ozfx1.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sk4onmzw.fsf@gnu.org> <871vc8nl0g.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87wru0m037.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276640360 11129 80.91.229.12 (15 Jun 2010 22:19:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Thien-Thi Nguyen Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 16 00:19:17 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOeTT-0008Po-Nv for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:19:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34256 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOeTT-0007IL-1a for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45006 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOeTN-0007Ep-Uv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOeTM-0007Mp-MJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:09 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:45446 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOeTM-0007MF-IJ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:08 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CA5BCFC9; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=q9bhwaN7AzNy oqJRhgwjM7fvrpg=; b=AuIMOqZWG7mKrT8kgtuZ2KpJ7n+xqV9Dd+gm3VCsF4A2 YnEkT8no5JrtEy4hgcspNheIPqEssN9fSqxye+2Pk40lsmc9wvdQCTO09T2DXnt8 cXxbSs+Vwna3+/5ue2NxBV4wz66sjZH9VGmsNcpd2DTr36f6Et0t4yrNZfEuDHY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=a6S2+a QwPVMyr4FAs8ENS15c397+u1rlQ0dkKkCbAwCAwo2Uh1ffzKa5QIKhPBAmiKQSKp QKfbhsQDoF2JRFLvsdm2yQ7Jh0dGdfPxN5rYZ1uba7B4q6G4GeTH3oG1yW4mFPhF 7w+45UghuUQEl+Km/NJGQrFDRiv7k4l2qYQIo= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71380BCFC7; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.39.158.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 858AEBCFC2; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87wru0m037.fsf@ambire.localdomain> (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:56:28 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0275E176-78CC-11DF-8104-9056EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10494 Archived-At: Hi, On Tue 15 Jun 2010 23:56, Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > () Andy Wingo > () 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 =E2=80=98tmpfile=E2=80=99 (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) =3D> 'tmpfile > > =3D=3D=3D > > (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 =E2=80=98port-filename=E2=80=99 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 --=20 http://wingolog.org/