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: guile-1.8 question Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:44:31 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255600765 10128 80.91.229.12 (15 Oct 2009 09:59:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Stanislav Ievlev Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 15 11:59:17 2009 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 4.50) id 1MyN76-0008Ql-E2 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:59:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39644 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MyN75-0007Yc-FV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:59:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MyMsO-0004fZ-EI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:44:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MyMsI-0004b7-9U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:44:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MyMsI-0004ax-4H for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:43:58 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:49062 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MyMsH-00052k-PI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:43:57 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E97759014; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:43:56 -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; s=sasl; bh=MzkCe+gZxhojIcrmytABZ5FMRQM=; b=RHGif+ hOfm0mIMRFj5fgbMJ56OdxblMjTncKC5NGofiUJBkTEtxvPTHkYtsCSol/63DhVJ rdnuZON74qQTCS/NkMV3DN9d/sATHHg3PtX83xu3HOqRB4ZkclHmWbPS2yIvr2YI WFBgjkaZ+G1yrccKkUcP4xk+/HmktrGGOaVRM= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=PwY6UUw3ur2hoNOodgI4KeHrV2YYqoSl ot7lMaloipL4uISRSFKY1SGY4XNboQHAwVENNnG8Af22XsCwYeLUk7lLEHlkhLzd YSMHaEgkEpgstNQjI3v/sDCEgqbVQVQyhMhc0t+WoLpUI4YKfO+qOak4rVhMDN+L ZO9QMj19UeM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0407359013; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [83.202.107.211]) (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 7E6D559012; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:43:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stanislav Ievlev's message of "Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:33:12 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 40EFF076-B96F-11DE-87BD-1B12EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:9490 Archived-At: On Wed 14 Oct 2009 09:33, Stanislav Ievlev writes: > 2009/10/14 Stanislav Ievlev : >> As I understand you should mark scm_fdes_to_port as a deprecated and >> don't use it in own code (e.g. in socket.c). > Ooops, I'm wrong. > scm_fdes_to_port works is like "scm_C_fdopen", however function name > is not good ;) The ports C interface is rather crufty, as you have found :) Do you have any suggestions, or a patch? Keep in mind that we need to maintain backwards compatibility with these interfaces. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/