[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424)
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424) |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:16:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:59:48AM -0500, Felix wrote:
> >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.
+1
> >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.
+1 (obviously)
> >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.
So it's too early for the poll then? Or are we voting on the
proposal of having a getter+setter?
Should we still have a separate set! procedure, aside from the
generic setter? It would make sense to me, since most procedures
have both a getter and a setter procedure, regardless of whether
they have a generic setter.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth
- [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424), Felix, 2010/11/23
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: umask support (#424),
Peter Bex <=
- 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