From: Catonano <caton...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: capture stdout and stderr
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 12:24:11 +0200
The first observation is that in the first case, you close the port
cotaining
the error _prior_ to attempting reading from the port
In the second case, you attempt reading from the port AND THEN you
close the
port
Yes, I also found that a bit surprising when I wrote that. However,
with a string-port, you have to call get-output-string *before*
closing the port, so that's why it's written like that
(https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/String-Ports.html).
I undertsand that the writing on ports is mediated by some form of
buffering,
or something, and closing the port also "flushes" the port, meaning
that if
there are some remnants to be written yet, they get written
I don't even know of with-error-to-port automatically closes the
port so that
manually closing it shouldn't be necessary
My reason to close the port was in order to have an EOF at the end of
the error output, so I can simply use get-string-all to retrieve it.
But yes, otherwise buffering might also come into play. I think I
checked that with-error-to-port didn't close the port for me. I'm
now leaving on a short vacation, so don't have time to check again in
more detail, but it's a good suggestion.
Thanks!
Thomas
