The new std.process is ready for review

[Lee Braiden]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:42:23 +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>>> 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():

I think something like getExitStatus() or checkExitStatus() makes more 
sense in terms of what the function actually does.  The only problem is 
that you lose the connection with wait().  wait is poorly named anyway 
though, it's only good because it's the traditional name.  A combo like 
waitForExitStatus() and checkForExitStatus() would probably make more 
sense.

Although I guess we're getting into java-style names, rather than C-style 
names ;)


-- 
Lee