The new std.process is ready for review

[Dmitry Olshansky]

24-Feb-2013 22:42, Lars T. Kyllingstad пишет:
> On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 18:05:14 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> 24-Feb-2013 21:41, Lars T. Kyllingstad пишет:
>>> On Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 11:31:21 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pull request:
>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1151
>>>>
>>>> Code:
>>>> https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/std-process2/std/process2.d
>>>>
>>>> Documentation:
>>>> http://www.kyllingen.net/code/std-process2/phobos-prerelease/std_process2.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, a new version with non-blocking wait is up.
>>
>> asyncWait would be less verbose :)
>
> To me, "asynchronous" implies that something is going on in the
> background that will produce a result in the future.  That is not what
> happens here.
>
> I agree that nonBlockingWait() is less than ideal, though, mainly
> because it is an oxymoron. :)  I considered "status", "isAlive", etc.,
> but I think it is important to emphasise the fact that if the process
> *has* terminated, nonBlockingWait() has the same, perhaps non-obvious,
> effects as wait():
>

detach
or
detachProcess

maybe as a method on Pid struct.
Then there is no need to handle status codes etc.
> On POSIX, it makes the OS clean up after the process.
> On Windows, it closes the process handle.
> On all platforms, it invalidates the processID and osHandle properties
> of the Pid object.
>
> If you or anyone else have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
>
> Lars


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky