On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 18:24:08 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:03:51 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
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:
spawnProcess(["prog"]);
That allocates. I don't like that requirement.
'scope string[] args' should tell the compiler not to allocate.
That's not how it works. The expression [<anything>] allocates.
Isn't that just a shortcoming of DMD? I thought 'scope' was all
about avoiding such allocations.
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.
Did that apply to all the statements above, or just the
variadic part?
The variadic part. (And the Tango-like object part, though that
didn't read like a suggestion.) A single-string version of
spawnProcess() is OK with me, in combination with either of:
spawnProcess(string, string[], etc.)
spawnProcess(string[], etc.)
Lars
