On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 16:45:08 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:09:48 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
I propose we only have two versions:
spawnProcess(string[] args, File stdin, etc...)
spawnProcess(string[] args, string[string] env, File stdin,
etc...)
You'd use it like this:
spawnProcess(["prog"]);
That allocates. I don't like that requirement.
'scope string[] args' should tell the compiler not to allocate.
At the very least there should be version which takes a simple
string, an easy thing to wrap:
auto spawnProcess(string program, File stdin, etc...)
{
return spawnProcess((&program)[0..1], stdin, etc...);
}
We should also consider a variadic solution. In tango, things
were done with an object, so the arguments were set via one
method/constructor, and the options (stdin, stdout, etc) were
set via another. This allowed the great API of
setArgs(string[] ...)
Which supports
setArgs("progname", "arg1", "arg2")
and
setArgs("progname arg1 arg2".split())
without extra allocation. However, we have two conflicting
parts to spawnProcess that would be optional -- the variadic
arg list, and the optional redirected handles and configuration.
We could just go full-bore variadic...
I'd rather not.
Lars
