[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424)
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
[Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424) |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Nov 2010 03:59:48 -0500 (EST) |
Hello!
(Sorry, lost the thread - start a new one)
Mario asked a few questions and I like to comment on those:
>Should it be possible to allow multiple threads to set different file creation
>modes? As far as I understand, Scsh allows that (I may be wrong, though).
I'm strongly against this. I don't see the advantage of doing so
and I find it unintuitive. A process is a process and a thread
is a thread. The umask is a process-specific setting, why make
it thread-specfic, then? (besides the obvious implementation
problems)
>How should the umask support be implemented? As Peter suggests (i.e., having
>file-creation-mode-mask and a setter for it)? Or just
>set-file-creation-mode-mask! which is just a direct binding to the umask
>syscall?
I'd prefer the accessor + setter.
>Maybe the poll should contain more options, like:
I would suggest a simple yes/no poll. All discussion shoult take place
before the time the poll is taken. If a CR gets rejected, further
discussion can go into details.
cheers,
felix
- [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424),
Felix <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Peter Bex, 2010/11/23
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Felix, 2010/11/23
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Peter Bex, 2010/11/23
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Felix, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Peter Bex, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Peter Bex, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Felix, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Peter Bex, 2010/11/24
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Jim Ursetto, 2010/11/23