From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53866)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hn3Gl-0003qG-Ok
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:52:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hn3Gk-0000Am-QN
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:52:03 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40000)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1hn3Gk-0000Ad-Lv
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:52:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hn3Gk-0007Ba-Ia
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:52:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#36668] [PATCH 0/1] Add 'eval/container'
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36668.B36668.156320589727584@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <20190715142126.14612-1-ludo@gnu.org>
 <CAJ=RwfYmHdmJkpWUyyx1mgw7P77U1OPhjvJ8CVFnHwp8_WgRtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:51:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAJ=RwfYmHdmJkpWUyyx1mgw7P77U1OPhjvJ8CVFnHwp8_WgRtw@mail.gmail.com>
 (David Thompson's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:22:44 -0400")
Message-ID: <87wogjl2iu.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Cc: 36668@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello!

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:22 AM Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wrot=
e:

[...]

>> I wonder if we should target =E2=80=98run-in-container=E2=80=99 instead =
of
>> =E2=80=98call-with-container=E2=80=99, or maybe both.
>
> I am behind the times. What is special about 'run-in-container'?

I actually meant =E2=80=98run-container=E2=80=99, which is the lower-level =
procedure
that =E2=80=98call-with-container=E2=80=99 invokes: it returns the PID of t=
he process
that has been created.

>> It=E2=80=99s also a bit troubling
>> that =E2=80=98eval/container=E2=80=99 returns an exit status instead of =
the evaluation
>> result, but I think it has to be this way, more or less.
>
> I haven't looked at your code, but have you considered supporting
> return values that can be serialized via 'write' and then using 'read'
> on the host side?  (Hmm, I wonder how exceptions could be passed from
> container to host.)

I did that in =E2=80=98container-excursion*=E2=80=99 a while back, but it=
=E2=80=99s not
generally applicable (there needs to be a read syntax for what=E2=80=99s se=
nt),
and I think it might be better to build it on top of a more primitive
procedure like this =E2=80=98eval/container=E2=80=99.

Whether we need something like this will depend on use cases I guess=E2=80=
=A6

Thanks for your feedback!

Ludo=E2=80=99.