You might also consider implementing the >process method for your custom <cmd1> / <cmd2> objects, which will be called automatically when invoking run-pipeline. http://docs.factorcode.org/content/word-__gt__process,io.launcher.html Or just do away with <cmd1> / <cmd2> objects altogether and build those as strings/arrays with `make`, too.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Alex Vondrak <ajvond...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ultimately, I may also insert some factor quot in betweeen >> str1 and str2 to do some processing before handing the >> result to cmd2. > > > Do you mean you want to take the output of running cmd1, manipulate it, > then pass *that* to cmd2? Because that sounds rather different from what > your example code looks like it's actually trying to do. > > It seems like your example is trying to construct launch descriptors > independently, then pass those entire results to run-pipeline at once. > Which is altogether easier: if I understand right, you're basically there > already, but your main concern is more about how to build the array in a > prettier way? If that's it, I suggest the `make` vocabulary: > http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-namespaces-make.html > > Some examples of `make` usage in the wild: > > https://github.com/slavapestov/factor/blob/master/basis/io/backend/unix/unix-tests.factor#L142-L147 > > https://github.com/slavapestov/factor/blob/master/basis/bootstrap/image/upload/upload.factor#L47-L51 > > https://github.com/slavapestov/factor/blob/master/extra/graphviz/render/render.factor#L62-L67 > > Granted, all of those are building a single process, not a pipeline. But > the same principles apply: > > : cmd1 ( -- ) ... ; > : cmd2 ( -- ) ... ; > > [ cmd1 , cmd2 , ] { } make run-pipeline > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:21 PM, HP Wei <hpwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I want to run binary codes (C++) under linux using run-pipeline >> >> In linux shell, the task is >> >> cmd1 -a arg1 -b arg2 | cmd2 -c arg3 >> >> I know in general, in factor, I need to construct >> >> { str1 str2 } run-pipeline >> where str1 = “cmd1 -a arg1 -b arg2” >> str2 = “cmd2 -c arg3” >> Ultimately, I may also insert some factor quot in betweeen >> str1 and str2 to do some processing before handing the >> result to cmd2. >> >> >> Here is what I envision: >> >> TUPLE: cmd1 a b ; >> >> : <cmd1> ( — cmd1 ) >> cmd1 new >> “default a” >>a >> “default b” >>b ; >> >> : get-cmd1 ( cmd1 — str1 ) >> [ a>> ] [ b>> ] bi >> “cmd1 -a %s -b %s” sprintf ; >> >> so now, I can write >> >> <cmd1> >> my_b >>b >> get-cmd1 >> >> ————— similarly for cmd2. >> >> But I bump into a mental block when trying to >> put things together for run-pipeline >> >> If there were just one cmd1 (without cmd2), >> I thought I could do >> >> ${ <cmd1> my_b >>b get-cmd1 } run-pipeline >> >> Adding cmd2, I could write >> >> ${ <cmd1> my_b >>b get-cmd1 <cmd2> my_c >>c get-cmd2 } run-pipeline >> >> But this looks ugly. >> Is there a simpler way ? >> >> Thanks >> HP Wei >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Factor-talk mailing list >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk >> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
