Hi Ludo, Happy new year!
Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > ‘spawn*’ is expressive enough, but a procedure with 6 positional > arguments cannot be exposed as-is IMO. > > One tiny thing that’s missing is a boolean to choose between > ‘posix_spawn’ and ‘posix_spawnp’. > > So we need either ‘spawn’ defined in Scheme as you did, or directly use > ‘scm_c_bind_keyword_arguments’ right in ‘scm_spawn_process’ (info > "(guile) Keyword Procedures"), to avoid ending up with two procedures. > I’m fine either way. I've done the above by using the C functions to bind keyword arguments, and added the #:use-path? keyword argument. One annoying thing though is that since it uses keyword arguments, the first line of the documentation generated by SCM_DEFINE only mentions "spawn program . keyword_args". >> Do we need to add a documentation page as well? > > Yes, please. :-) I realize I’m asking a lot of things, so let me know > if you’d like to share the workload somehow. > > Doc could go in the “Processes” section, or possibly in a new section > we’d add right after it, “Spawning Programs”. We should probably add a > “@quotation Note” in the doc of ‘primitive-fork’ that briefly explains > why people should probably use ‘spawn’ rather than fork + exec. I've opted to put it right below primitive-fork, and slightly rewrite the part about pipes in primitive-fork's description to also mention spawn. Let me know if the documentation is not descriptive enough. WDYT? -- Josselin Poiret
