From: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\) via Libc-alpha" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
To: Paul Smith <psmith@gnu.org>, Donn Terry <donnterry@gmail.com>,
Geoff Clare <gwc@opengroup.org>
Cc: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.lists@gmail.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
"libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
austin-group-l <austin-group-l@opengroup.org>,
mtk.manpages@gmail.com, enh <enh@google.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Pseudoterminal terminology in POSIX
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 22:34:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba59552b-9ccf-9454-465f-e503b17a316a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d8c5e6e96fbdd47ce143a566b57db2c803d4898.camel@gnu.org>
[again restoring the CC]
On 8/5/20 5:28 PM, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 08:00 -0700, Donn Terry via austin-group-l at The
> Open Group wrote:
>> The suggestions here so far are cumbersome and tend to be ambiguous.
>> The old m-word and sl-word, and also "client" and "server" could
>> potentially be interpreted backwards from the conventional intent.
>> (You can think about it as the sl-word/client actually being in
>> control: telling the m-word/server what it's supposed to be doing,
>> e.g. "execute this command line".)
>>
>> How about "provider" and "consumer"? "Pseudoterminal provider" and
>> "...consumer" seem (at least to me) to be unambiguous in terms of the
>> reversal above, (reasonably) clear in meaning, and politically
>> neutral. Have the other discussions not shown here considered this?
>
> To me even "provider" / "consumer" still has this issue: do you
> consider the pseudoterminal as providing to the terminal, or the
> terminal as providing to the pseudoterminal. Both seem legitimate
> enough interpretations to create confusion.
That was my immediate thought also, unfortunately. That said,
again, I think if we settle on a terminology (even provider/consumer),
people will adapt. (But, i still prefer pseudoterminal/terminal or
ancillary/primary).
> To remove ambiguity perhaps we need to think about the attributes that
> are unique to each element of the pair and use that in the term, for
> example "backend" / "frontend".
>
> This would have to be introduced, something like "a pseudoterminal
> device pair consists of a backend terminal device and a frontend
> pseudoterminal device".
Yes. The terminology, whatever it is, needs to be introduced and
defined. That alone will remove a lot of ambiguity, regardless of
the terms that are settled on.
Thanks,
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-05 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-05 11:21 Pseudoterminal terminology in POSIX Michael Kerrisk via Libc-alpha
2020-08-05 13:51 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
[not found] ` <20200805142049.GA17848@localhost>
2020-08-05 20:34 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha
[not found] ` <CAP1RCkjrqKGJmh6f637D=yGuhev7ae5QJkMjv5a8iHo4X33NFw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <1d8c5e6e96fbdd47ce143a566b57db2c803d4898.camel@gnu.org>
2020-08-05 20:34 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha [this message]
[not found] ` <21048.1596645536@jinx.noi.kre.to>
[not found] ` <CAH7i3LrNvBo3indixGyJgS2_4F9r3cd3kOiDgPK8m-ZXj1a0zg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <874bfe40-5f05-151d-42b3-482baacbf0b2@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAH7i3LpXZxwaLQTY=XK8zM4jWYHSiy1feA6ZLE-mT-ZiJNak5A@mail.gmail.com>
2020-08-11 8:31 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha
2020-08-08 23:18 ` Larry Dwyer via Libc-alpha
2020-08-10 13:20 ` Joerg Schilling
2020-08-10 18:10 ` Zack Weinberg
2020-08-10 18:17 ` Samuel Thibault
2020-08-10 18:21 ` Samuel Thibault
2020-08-11 8:32 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha
2020-08-10 13:58 ` Thor Lancelot Simon
2020-08-11 8:31 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha
2020-08-11 11:51 ` Thor Lancelot Simon
2020-08-11 14:20 ` Michael Kerrisk via Libc-alpha
2020-08-12 14:37 ` Thor Lancelot Simon
2020-08-11 8:32 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) via Libc-alpha
2020-08-11 17:29 ` Joshua M. Clulow via Libc-alpha
2020-08-12 13:19 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
2020-08-18 16:10 ` Dave Martin
2020-08-18 16:44 ` enh via Libc-alpha
2020-08-11 11:17 ` Dirk Fieldhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/involved.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ba59552b-9ccf-9454-465f-e503b17a316a@gmail.com \
--to=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=austin-group-l@opengroup.org \
--cc=donnterry@gmail.com \
--cc=enh@google.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=gwc@opengroup.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=psmith@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).