Re: request tmpfile(3) wrapping in Guile 1.9 libguile

[Andy Wingo]

Greets,

On Fri 12 Feb 2010 16:21, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

>  (write (getpid)) (newline)
>  (define tmp (tmpfile))
>  (sleep 10)
>  (set! tmp #f) ; lose ref
>  (let loop () (gc) (sleep 1) (loop))
>
> I observed that the descriptor is listed as "/tmp/FILENAME (deleted)"
> from the beginning and that after some time, this entry goes away. So
> my trust in `scm_fdes_to_port' is not broken (cool). Still, i wonder
> what others see.

I wonder as well; but if the API works as advertised, then the file must
be deleted, whether fclose(3) is called or not; so I guess this part of
things works out fine. If the FILE* is never written to then we don't
have buffering problems either.

>    Yes, this sounds better than mkstemp!. Since you seem to have to code
>    already, can you submit two patches with mkstemp and tempfile,
>    respectively?
>
> I think you mean `tmpfile'.  Please see attached patch.

Yes indeed, and thanks.

>    While we're here... Ludovic, Neil and I talked over mail about your
>    request to (re)join the Guile project, and we're very happy to have
>    your skills and energy.  The one concern that we have is that you
>    tend to be a bit cavalier; so until we feel like we're on the same
>    page, we would like for you to refrain from committing to master or
>    the 1.8 branch.
>
> Thanks for the frank assessment.  I will try to be less cavalier (or
> perhaps more "anti-cavalier", once i figure out what that means in this
> context).  I appreciate any tips on this aspect.
>
> [...]  How do you feel about a branches named ttn/wip-TOPIC ?

Thanks for understanding. I think ttn/wip-TOPIC is a fine convention.
I'm also fine with simply wip-TOPIC. But either way works for me.

Regarding our reservations / impedance mismatches, I think the best
thing for all would be for you to hack away as you see fit, commit to
branches, and we give feedback on the branches.

Happy hacking,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/