On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:45:31 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<pub...@kyllingen.net> wrote:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:40:57 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
Hi,
I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by
Lars T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
The result is here:
https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
Windows build).
Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
it included.
Great! Steve and I never got around to doing this, and I haven't
had the time to do much Phobos development for the past year. I
would be very happy to see this code finally make it into Phobos
-- it is long overdue!
Unfortunately, in the immediate future, I don't think I can
guarantee the degree of availability that is expected in a review
process. After all, the reviewee(?) should be available for
questions and criticism, and for implementing the changes agreed
upon. But perhaps Steve and I could do the review together, and
thus share the burden? I haven't visited the forums in a while,
is Steve still around?
While I remember: std.process.environment was accepted into
Phobos a long time ago. I'm pretty sure it has received some
updates in Phobos master since then, but I can't remember whether
I backported those to my repo. You should probably compare them
and see.
Another thing: Proper unittests for all functionality in this
module would be great. If anyone has a good idea as to which
processes can be run in a unittest, both safely and with a
predictable outcome, on each platform, please speak up.
Hi Alex,
I too have been very uninvolved with D for the past few months (not by
choice). I'm glad someone is picking this up again, and I will try to
offer as much help as I can. I unfortunately have been extremely busy
with iOS development and objective C. I'd love to get back into working
on D, but I just can't right now.
I have not been keeping up with the forums or with the mailing lists, Lars
emailed me about your efforts. The only thing I recall about the Windows
stuff that was not complete was that I was not setting some of the pipe
handles to close when the new process is created (someone had pointed that
out, I can't remember who).
If I get some time, I will test your branch on my Windows system and
review the code.
-Steve