Subject: [clisp-list] what's proc for then?

From: Peter Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 17 13:42:02 2002

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 02:18:21PM -0700, Sam Steingold wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/clisp/clisp/doc
> In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv14407/doc
> 
> Modified Files:
> 	impbody.xml 
> Log Message:
> (make_file_stream) [UNIX, RISCOS]: file streams for the /proc filesystem
> default to unbuffered (it's better not to mess with those files anyway!)
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi,

Unbuffered is _probably_ better for /proc files, but there is no
guarantee.  A better solution would be to find out _why_ Clisp is
having problems with some files in /proc when other systems running
under Linux are not. (Bash, Python, Perl, Ruby, CMUCL)

No - I won't go digging around with gdb.  I can solve my problem
faster (immediately) by just using one of the above mentioned tools.

I have been getting some really bizarre results with Clisp and /proc,
and frankly, its enough to make me doubt Clisp's suitability as a
sysadmin tool on Linux.

Writing to files under /proc does not qualify as 'messing with them'
(unless you think "foo" is suitable for testing)

Regards,
Peter

---

From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 17 14:05:02 2002

> * In message <[email-masked]>
> * On the subject of "[clisp-list] what's proc for then?"
> * Sent on Fri, 17 May 2002 22:41:24 +0200
> * Honorable Peter Wood <[email-masked]> writes:
>

I consider it rude that you send a follow-up to a message in
<clisp-devel> to <clisp-list>.
Please follow-up to the same mailing list.

> A better solution would be to find out _why_ Clisp is having problems
> with some files in /proc when other systems running under Linux are
> not. (Bash, Python, Perl, Ruby, CMUCL)
> No - I won't go digging around with gdb.

if you are not willing to help, why do you expect me to spend my time
here?  do others think that this attitude is reasonable?

> (unless you think "foo" is suitable for testing)

I would have understood your frustration better if you actually _did_
something.

If you do not understand log messages, you better ask what they mean.
[okay, your outburst qualifies as a question just once: here by
"messing" I meant doing fancy stuff with them, like buffering].

regarding your previous reports, note that (FORMAT FOO "..." ...) is not
the same as (WRITE-STRING (FORMAT NIL "..." ...) FOO) wrt atomicity of
write.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.

---

From: Peter Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat May 18 02:22:02 2002

Hi,

> Please follow-up to the same mailing list.

I have previously asked you not to cc mail to me as I get whatever is
sent to the list, and find it annoying getting duplicates.  You chose
to ignore that request.  I find that rude.  I sent the mail in
question to clisp-list because it relates to the recent thread (in
clisp-list) regarding the buggy i/o under /proc.  I find that
perfectly reasonable.  I also changed the subject of the message so
that it would be obvious that it was not simply a follow-up to a post
on clisp-devel.

Making unbuffered the default under /proc is not neccesarily going to
help this problem.  Do you think it's a good idea to make changes
without knowing the cause of the problem?  Do you think it's a good
idea to make changes to buggy functionality without first
understanding what is going wrong?
 
> here?  do others think that this attitude is reasonable?

I am not willing to help in this specific case.  Last time this bug
came up I wasted many hours on it with gdb.  I feel that file i/o is
such a basic area that you can't expect users to do this for you.  If
this issue is not important to you, fine.  I also have to justify the
time I spend on Clisp, and many hours on a debugger (again) is losing
out to 'it just works' with half a dozen other programming
languages/systems.

> I would have understood your frustration better if you actually _did_

Why do you think I'm frustrated?  I am a bit shocked by the basic bugs
which keep turning up every time I try to use Clisp other than
trivially.

> the same as (WRITE-STRING (FORMAT NIL "..." ...) FOO) wrt atomicity of

I did not say it was.  I was deliberately experimenting with
_different_ functionality in an attempt to get some idea of the shape
of the problem.

Please just forget my reports on this bug.  I won't be bothering you
with any more.

Regards,
Peter

---

From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat May 18 06:18:02 2002

> * In message <[email-masked]>
> * On the subject of "Re: [clisp-list] what's proc for then?"
> * Sent on Sat, 18 May 2002 11:21:59 +0200
> to ignore that request.  I find that rude.

I cannot keep track of everyone's preferences.
if this were important to you, you would have set the header
Mail-Copies-To: never

> understanding what is going wrong?

I do not feel obligated to justify my decisions to you on this list.
If you were asking serious questions you would have been asking them on
the right mailing list.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.