New std.process revival

Alex Rønne Petersen alex at lycus.org
Mon Dec 10 14:23:18 PST 2012


On 10-12-2012 23:18, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
> 10.12.2012 20:58, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>> On 10-12-2012 10:04, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>>> 06.12.2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by
>>>> Lars
>>>> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>>>
>>>> The result is here:
>>>> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>>>
>>>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
>>>> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
>>>> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
>>>> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>>>
>>>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
>>>> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
>>>> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>>>> Windows build).
>>>>
>>>> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
>>>> process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
>>>> back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
>>>> it included.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please, confirm that such std.process implementation and its
>>> functionality (process and threads listing etc., all what you have in
>>> .Net once finished) is not needed:
>>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k8v45g$15o6$1@digitalmars.com
>>>
>>
>> I don't follow?
>>
>
> What is your question?
> I already wrote all my reasons in "[RFC] Modules for processes
> manipulation" thread linked above. Nobody was interested in. So I want
> to be sure my variant is unneeded not just accidentally missed. If I'm
> the only person here who would like to see at least every option .Net
> Framework offer for process manipulation it's OK and I will stop asking
> about it.
>

No, I think there are a lot of people who want this. D is basically 
useless for scripting work because of its poor process manipulation support.

But keep in mind that your module is very Windows-centric and most 
people who deal with shell scripting work are on POSIX systems (a 
generalization, of course, but mostly true). I think that's why you 
didn't get much input.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list