chicken-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]