l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > 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’m closing this as not-a-bug. Ludo’.
