Re: [Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

On 03/08/07, Bryan O'Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pardon me while I veer off-topic, but you could also use Pandoc to do > this. No forking required. > http://sophos.berkeley.edu/macfarlane/pandoc/ I'll add that to the list of "things that must be done". That list seems, necessarily, to

Re: [Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

Dougal Stanton wrote: I had to do this recently, so you might be interested in my approach: The idea here is to run arbitrary text (blog posts) through Markdown and Smartypants before sending them out to the wider world. Pardon me while I ve

Re: [Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

On 03/08/07, Dave Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm actually calling > Markdown.pl on tiny files (source code of lengths a human would read), and > it is certainly sluggish enough to be a fair test.) I had to do this recently, so you might be interested in my approach:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

bayer: > If one is calling runInteractiveCommand for a "sure-thing" returning a small > amount of output (say, "ls" for a modest directory"), is it necessary to call > waitForProcess? > > My waitForProcess calls came under scrutiny when I tried to GHC profile a > threaded process, which isn't poss

Re: [Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

On Aug 2, 2007, at 23:52 , Dave Bayer wrote: If one is calling runInteractiveCommand for a "sure-thing" returning a small amount of output (say, "ls" for a modest directory"), is it necessary to call waitForProcess? Most operating systems only let you have a small number of outstanding

[Haskell-cafe] When is waitForProcess not necessary?

If one is calling runInteractiveCommand for a "sure-thing" returning a small amount of output (say, "ls" for a modest directory"), is it necessary to call waitForProcess? My waitForProcess calls came under scrutiny when I tried to GHC profile a threaded process, which isn't possible. It turns out