This was briefly discussed on #lisp, but I figured it good to put this
on the list too.
To what extent do we want to support SB-POSIX on Windows?
1. Not at all: Any implementation of SB-POSIX on Windows is going
to be extremely incomplete, and efforts would be better spent
on an SB-WINDOWS contrib.
2. To the extent the semantics and the names match: opendir exits,
and is called opendir, so we can support that. creat is called
_creat, so we can't.
3. To the extent the semantics match
3.1. ...and names indicate intentional similarity: creat and
_creat are close enough.
3.2. ...and the names be damned: fsync and _commit are essentailly
4. As much as possible with a modicum of sanity: lstat doesn't exist,
but neither do symlinks, so either make lstat read .lnk files
(like Cygwin does, afaik), or defer to stat directly).
With options 2. and 3. a guideline on the close-enough semantics needs
to be worked out / decided on case-by-case basis.
My vote goes to 3.1 (with a future option on 3.2 if people using
SB-POSIX on Windows ask for it), with no 1. as secondary choise, which is
also the current state of affairs in CVS, with the exception of
sb-posix:lstat that right now defers to sb-posix:stat on Windows.
This is mildly urgent in the sense that if 1. or 2. is preferred, then
it would be better to revert to that status before the next release.
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."