On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:32:34 +0100 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 23 09:38, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:49:20 +0100 > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Hi Takashi, > > > > > > On Mar 21 12:59, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > > > - Currently, the name of input pipe is "ptyNNNN-from-master" for > > > > cygwin process, and "ptyNNNN-to-slave" for non-cygwin process. > > > > These are not only inconsistent with output pipes but also very > > > > confusing. > > > > With this patch, these are renamed to "ptyNNNN-from-master-cyg" > > > > and "ptyNNNN-from-master" respectively. > > > > --- > > > > winsup/cygwin/fhandler_tty.cc | 2 +- > > > > winsup/cygwin/tty.cc | 4 ++-- > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > Actually... wouldn't it make more sense to call the Cygwin pipe > > > > > > pty%d-from-master / pty%d-to-slave > > > > > > and the non-Cygwin one something like > > > > > > pty%d-from-master-nat / pty%d-to-slave-nat > > > > > > ? > > > > > > After all, Cygwin is the norm, and non-Cygwin is the exception. > > > > > > On second thought, this would also make sense for thr fhandler methods, > > > i. e. > > > > > > get_output_handle / get_output_handle_cyg > > > > > > vs. > > > > > > get_output_handle_nat / get_output_handle > > > > > > Probably the fhandler stuff is too much renaming for this release, > > > but we should do this for the next one, I think. > > > > I basically agree. However, renaming them consistently is > > too much for 3.2.0 release as you mentioned. So, IMHO, it > > is better to apply this patch once for 3.2.0 release and > > then fully rename them for the next one. > > > > What do you think? > > I thought of renaming the pipes in this release, since you're already > renaimg it anyway. Renaming the fhandler members and methods could > take place in the next release.
OK. I will submit the rename patch. -- Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
