On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:51:09 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: > Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: > >> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:49:07 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included >>>>>>> support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in >>>>>>> phobos? Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design? >>>>>> >>>>>> That is still the plan, yes. The new std.process is pretty much >>>>>> done, and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is >>>>>> being blocked by bug 3979. (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the >>>>>> changes were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...) >>>>>> >>>>>> -Lars >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in >>>>> the meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in >>>> my local repo). Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the >>>> module "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos. >>>> Note that the code in my github repo is for POSIX only. Steven >>>> Schveighoffer has done the Windows work, and I don't have his code. >>> >>> That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not >>> checked in anywhere... >>> >>> Maybe I should send you my code. >> >> Sure, feel free to do so. :) I'm very curious to see how you solved >> the pipe stuff! >> >> Even though we can't include it in Phobos before 3979 is fixed, we can >> at least combine our code, publish it somewhere, and start the review >> process. >> >> Also, we should probably get the whole File buffering thing sorted out. >> That discussion kinda ebbed out without any good solution presenting >> itself... >> >> -Lars > > Will you announce it if published? I'm interested in using it even > though api is unstable, at least I have something until std.process is > finished. I'll report back feedback / issues if you want.
Sure, that would be great. :) -Lars
