Hey, Andy Wingo <wi...@igalia.com> skribis:
> On Fri 12 Jan 2018 11:15, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@igalia.com> skribis: >> >>> On Thu 11 Jan 2018 22:55, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, is there a reason why you're using an unbuffered port >>>>>> in your use case? >>>>> >>>>> It’s to implement redirect à la socat: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=17af5d51de7c40756a4a39d336f81681de2ba447 >>>> >>>> Why is an unbuffered port being used here? Can we change it to a >>>> buffered port? >>> >>> This was also a question I had! If you make it a buffered port at 4096 >>> bytes (for example), then get-bytevector-some works exactly like you >>> want it to, no? >> >> It might work, but that’s more by chance no? > > No, it is reliable. get-bytevector-some on a buffered port must either > return all the buffered bytes or perform exactly one read (up to the > buffer size) and either return those bytes or EOF. As far as I > understand, that is exactly what you want. Indeed, that works well, thanks! So, after all, problem solved? I think the confusion for me comes from the fact that we don’t have a FILE*/fd distinction like in C. It’s as if we were always using FILE* in the sense that I’m never sure what’s going to happen or whether a particular behavior can be relied on. Thank you, Ludo’.
