Re: [PATCH] Cygwin: pty: Rename input named pipes.

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

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.

Do you prefer to rename pipes and fhandler methods in a single release?


Thanks,
Corinna