On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Peter Bortas <bor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris: What you have seem generally useful, but it lies in a namespace > that will get a bit busy if we implement all the special cases as we > think of them. I have similar function not checked in that would > confuse users if we both committed. No in the least because I find > exceptions useless for most smaller scripts unless I just plan on not > catching anything. Which means my scripts are full of very similar > code but where the functions return 0 on failure, not throwing, but > dumping the failure pretty-printed to the console. Something I've also > been planning to Process for a while, but not come up with a set of > functions that doesn't make it confusing for users to choose among all > the stuff.
Since this is of interest, I've rebased the branch onto current 8.1, so we have a clean starting point for discussion. > As I see it there are a few things that should happen in regards to > external process spawning: > > 1. Can we come up with an almost as easy to use API as Process.run > that plays better with memory and latency? My first thought along those lines is to have something that returns a pipe or buffer for stdout. Maybe a specially-enhanced one that also deals with the return value? Ideally, it should have a single return value that can be used directly for the most obvious usage, which is receiving stdout. Receiving stderr and/or the return value would ideally be possible, but if that isn't possible, I don't mind a convenience function that you have to set aside when you want more control. More of a brainstorm or stream-of-consciousness than an actual theory, but that's my thinking. ChrisA
