future of std.process?

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:49:07 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> <public at kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
>>
>>> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
>>>>> support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in
>>>>> phobos? Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?
>>>>
>>>> That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much
>>>> done, and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is
>>>> being blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the
>>>> changes were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)
>>>>
>>>> -Lars
>>>
>>> Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in
>>> the meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?
>>
>> Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my
>> local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the module
>> "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.  Note
>> that the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven
>> Schveighoffer has done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.
> 
> That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not
> checked in anywhere...
> 
> Maybe I should send you my code.

Sure, feel free to do so. :)  I'm very curious to see how you solved the 
pipe stuff!

Even though we can't include it in Phobos before 3979 is fixed, we can at 
least combine our code, publish it somewhere, and start the review 
process.

Also, we should probably get the whole File buffering thing sorted out.  
That discussion kinda ebbed out without any good solution presenting 
itself...

-Lars