Heya :) On Tue 09 Mar 2021 22:47, Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> writes:
> On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 21:36 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: >> Hi :) Sure, would be happy to accept a patch for these. > See <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46220> > and messages above. I'll look at updating NEWS and the manual > later. Great! I agree it's weird that O_NOTRANS is defined but 0 on GNU/Linux. Perhaps better not to define it if it's zero? Dunno tho. >> It's adding >> more definitions to the base environment, which is usually a negative, >> but we'll have to find some kind of module solution for all of these >> flags at some point. > > Would defining O_* in a new module (ice-9 open-flags) > (or the existing module (ice-9 posix) maybe?) be acceptable? > Or alternatively, a syntax (open-flag SYMBOL) that expands to > the flag's value -- Let's punt for now :) >> If you do send a patch, please update the manual >> and NEWS also. > > The manual only documents O_RDONLY, O_WRONLY, O_RDWR, > O_APPEND and O_CREAT currently, and points the reader > at glibc's manual for additional flags. Ah yes. Probably the flags (possibly) supported by Guile should be in the manual. Document them if you have a moment? :) Otherwise just document the new ones. Andy
