future of std.process?

[Lutger Blijdestijn]

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.