The new std.process is ready for review

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

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:
>>
>> I propose we only have two versions:
>>
>> spawnProcess(string[] args, File stdin, etc...)
>> spawnProcess(string[] args, string[string] env, File stdin, 
>> etc...)
>>
>> You'd use it like this:
>>
>> spawnProcess(["prog"]);
>
> That allocates.  I don't like that requirement.

'scope string[] args' should tell the compiler not to allocate.


> 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.

Lars