24-Feb-2013 22:42, Lars T. Kyllingstad пишет:
On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 18:05:14 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
24-Feb-2013 21:41, Lars T. Kyllingstad пишет:
On Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 11:31:21 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
Pull request:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1151
Code:
https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/blob/std-process2/std/process2.d
Documentation:
http://www.kyllingen.net/code/std-process2/phobos-prerelease/std_process2.html
Ok, a new version with non-blocking wait is up.
asyncWait would be less verbose :)
To me, "asynchronous" implies that something is going on in the
background that will produce a result in the future. That is not what
happens here.
I agree that nonBlockingWait() is less than ideal, though, mainly
because it is an oxymoron. :) I considered "status", "isAlive", etc.,
but I think it is important to emphasise the fact that if the process
*has* terminated, nonBlockingWait() has the same, perhaps non-obvious,
effects as wait():
detach
or
detachProcess
maybe as a method on Pid struct.
Then there is no need to handle status codes etc.
On POSIX, it makes the OS clean up after the process.
On Windows, it closes the process handle.
On all platforms, it invalidates the processID and osHandle properties
of the Pid object.
If you or anyone else have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
Lars
--
Dmitry Olshansky
