[bouncing this back to debbugs] On Sat 25 Jun 2016 17:49, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Sat 25 Jun 2016 15:51, Josep Portella Florit <j...@primfilat.com> writes: > >>> I dunno how much we should push this "processes are a single port" >>> abstraction. In many ways for OPEN_BOTH pipes it's easier to deal with >>> an input and an output port and a PID instead of the pipe abstraction. >>> WDYT? We could just expose `open-process' from (ice-9 popen) to start >>> with. It would be good to allow other fd's or ports to map to the child >>> as well, e.g. stderr or any particular port; but I don't know what >>> interface we should expose. >> >> Since patching was inconvenient for me, I eventually used: >> >> (use-modules ((ice-9 popen) #:select (open-process))) >> >> Which works even though `open-process` is not exported. > > Note that this behavior of #:select is a bug. We won't remove it in > stable-2.0 but we have removed it in master. > >> For me, exporting `open-process` and documenting it would be enough. > > Fine with me, many people have asked for this at this point. I guess > that's the next step for this bug. > >> I also like the Racket interface to processes: >> <https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/subprocess.html> >> (I've mostly used the `process` procedure.) > > Duly noted! The more we steal from Racket, the better Guile will be :) > > Andy
