future of std.process?

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:51:09 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> Will you announce it if published? I'm interested in using it even
> though api is unstable, at least I have something until std.process is
> finished. I'll report back feedback / issues if you want.

Sure, that would be great. :)

-Lars