The new std.process is ready for review

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:03:51 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad  
<public at kyllingen.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 16:45:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:09:48 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad  
>> <public at kyllingen.net> wrote:

>>> spawnProcess(["prog"]);
>>
>> That allocates.  I don't like that requirement.
>
> 'scope string[] args' should tell the compiler not to allocate.

That's not how it works.  The expression [<anything>] allocates.

>> At the very least there should be version which takes a simple string,  
>> an easy thing to wrap:
>>
>> auto spawnProcess(string program, File stdin, etc...)
>> {
>>    return spawnProcess((&program)[0..1], stdin, etc...);
>> }
>>
>> We should also consider a variadic solution.  In tango, things were  
>> done with an object, so the arguments were set via one  
>> method/constructor, and the options (stdin, stdout, etc) were set via  
>> another.  This allowed the great API of
>>
>> setArgs(string[] ...)
>>
>> Which supports
>>
>> setArgs("progname", "arg1", "arg2")
>>
>> and
>>
>> setArgs("progname arg1 arg2".split())
>>
>> without extra allocation.  However, we have two conflicting parts to  
>> spawnProcess that would be optional -- the variadic arg list, and the  
>> optional redirected handles and configuration.
>>
>> We could just go full-bore variadic...
>
> I'd rather not.

Did that apply to all the statements above, or just the variadic part?

-Steve