rdmd and popen

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Max Samukha wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:19:38 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> 
>> Max Samukha wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:09:43 +0200, Max Samukha
>>> <samukha at voliacable.com.removethis> wrote:
>>>
>>>> rebuild is pretty unusable with dmd 2.023, so I've taken the liberty
>>>> to port a popen implementation to D for Windows and modify rdmd to use
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> The handle returned by the popen st
>>> ..ill fails at the end of stream (maybe due to this issue
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/c++/windows/32-bits/274.html),
>>> so the exception is simply ignored for now.
>>>
>>> The rdmd.d patch and popen are here
>>> http://d-coding.com/download/rdmd.zip
>> That's great! Is it ok with you if I take the popen implementation and 
>> do the rdmd integration by hand? I made a couple of other changes to 
>> rdmd and I'm not sure how patch would cope with that. Also, please let 
>> me know if you allow me to change popen a bit to e.g make symbols more 
>> local and add documentation. Finally, please let me know if I can 
>> publish your implementation in Phobos and use it in other functions such 
>> as shell().
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Yep. But there are numerous issues with this implementation
> 
> 1. The bad descriptor error.
> 2. pclose is not implemented accoring to the standard. There is a way
> to partially fix this by storing the process ID in the descriptor.
> 3. 0 is passed to the mode parameter of _open_osfhandle. It should
> probably be _O_BINARY if the runtime cares at all.
> 4. This implementaion is based on a number of existing ones so the
> owners of original versions may be bad enough to claim their rights.
> 
> So it's far from being a perfect popen :)

If your implementation relies heavily on others I think there is no 
question that you need to ask them for permission and also credit them 
in your implementation (whether they ask for that or not). Until then I 
can't do much.

Andrei