From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Maxime Devos Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Question about an error with ports Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:11:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: <3f938fe1-9af4-9076-8d50-d1f7b2ddda36@posteo.de> <87ilslc0gn.fsf@laura> <87fsnpbcbp.fsf@laura> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qHC6Lh62Y9YpoflgMQ6B" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9371"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 To: Olivier Dion , Zelphir Kaltstahl , guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 11 13:16:50 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nSeCQ-0002BC-04 for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:16:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60280 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSeCO-0002S3-KF for guile-user@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:16:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44864) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSeCD-0002Rr-DR for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:16:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [2a02:1800:120:4::f00:d] (port=36080 helo=newton.telenet-ops.be) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSeCB-0003Ma-CT for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:16:37 -0500 Original-Received: from xavier.telenet-ops.be (xavier.telenet-ops.be [IPv6:2a02:1800:120:4::f00:14]) by newton.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KFQ0105HxzMrylJ for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:16:33 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ptr-bvsjgyhxw7psv60dyze.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:3c5f:2eff:feb0:ba5a]) by xavier.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id 50BU2700W4UW6Th010BUvy; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:11:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87fsnpbcbp.fsf@laura> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r22; t=1647000689; bh=JXpmauNOKBCASbcAOrFbWfs+rwvWvhv4MK++lv/Hj3w=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=c2OvlYYyd2+18A6jSbHa3zXyiMuITZP/rcVc5oa7TCG0Zz4y8zsATGeglfBgRlSy4 8iFv0lMb8HUZK/X/w2dubgdmsA/AdakZFiCqoIXDkUy8OFM5wYbT05UfsLGxOCJSwJ yF3OZNuEhUeJljlJU3HrHmSMXVeOsvsSqemHin7SZ93E7Bqkq/YF3fy/oGfd9vqUIa J1iKJMbZ2UpmcNCLq22JXcCKNO5ZjFk7xqsifVunW9BGGD6NOoKPlXsSr3iTGb101F PWrcvgOSKXjEzQjKHOkB+QkTcxKWwfF5gi9Qmmn71ahGNpNlzB7ZfneN5lRjX3t0G8 FkGQPSIFCDTbw== X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2a02:1800:120:4::f00:d (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:1800:120:4::f00:d; envelope-from=maximedevos@telenet.be; helo=newton.telenet-ops.be X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.user:18184 Archived-At: --=-qHC6Lh62Y9YpoflgMQ6B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Olivier Dion via General Guile related discussions schreef op do 10-03- 2022 om 18:46 [-0500]: > I haven't check the implementation details, but I think it's just a > question of buffering.=C2=A0 `get-bytevector-n` will block just like > `get-bytevector-some` when the port is empty.=C2=A0 The former will retur= n up > to N bytes and the latter might return more than N bytes. I don't think that get-bytevector-some can return more, and it could return less: Return either [...] or a new bytevector containing some of the available bytes (at least one), Also, gnunet-scheme depends on the behaviour of it (*) being able to return less without blocking (in gnu/gnunet/utils/tokeniser.scm). If the behaviour was different, there would have been many test failures. (*) actually, it uses the variant 'get-bytevector-some!' instead of 'get-bytevector-some'. Greetings, Maxime. --=-qHC6Lh62Y9YpoflgMQ6B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYis8aRccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7ru6APoC6BewTdigDWIQzpZihWhfMa3/ N2Fzn22bHHSYziB3eAEAwLLBW2QWFHeT0FbmaEtSrhAhO2pgKZX5qMpN63Wy2QE= =pqZr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-qHC6Lh62Y9YpoflgMQ6B--