Thread overview | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
October 20, 2012 New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;)
Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060.
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
|
October 20, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen Attachments:
| On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 20:17 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;) > > Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060. 2.061? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder |
October 20, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Russel Winder | On 20-10-2012 20:39, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 20:17 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >> It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;) >> >> Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review >> queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060. > > 2.061? > Yes. My bad. :) -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex@lycus.org http://lycus.org |
October 20, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:56:01 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Yes. My bad. :)
I figured you had invented time travel… ;)
In all seriousness, I would also love to see the std.process rewrite in the next release, as I have been several times in situations now where I wanted to use D to write a little tool, but could not due to its basically non-existent support for handling child processes.
Oh, and could somebody please post a link to the latest version of the new std.process draft? I will probably add cross-platform support for constraining execution time and resource (RAM, mostly) usage, but there is no point in reimplementing it if it's already there.
David
|
October 21, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to David Nadlinger | 21.10.2012 1:52, David Nadlinger пишет: > On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:56:01 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > Oh, and could somebody please post a link to the latest version of the > new std.process draft? I will probably add cross-platform support for > constraining execution time and resource (RAM, mostly) usage, but there > is no point in reimplementing it if it's already there. > > David Probably original discussion with links: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/The_new_std.process_163694.html Links from that thread: * std.process overhaul: https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/commits/new-std-process * druntime changes: https://github.com/schveiguy/druntime/commits/new-std-process Probably nobody needs it, but: For Win32 solution (Win64 in future) one can use https://github.com/denis-sh/hooking project that implement some process manipulation functionality (consider hooking.windows.* modules). It's almost undocumented but its source is obvious and it works. For non-hooking needs, hooking.windows.process is basically a tiny WinAPI wrapper (with exceptions like e.g. Process.getThreadIds that use nasty Nt* stuff which is the only way to obtain process threads AFAIK). If somebody needs it, feel free to send bugreports and feature-requests like: ".NET's System.Diagnostics.Process can it, implement it, now!". And yes, 'phobos-additions' project is also required to compile and coffimplib-ed Windows SDK's psapi.lib is required to link. -- Денис В. Шеломовский Denis V. Shelomovskij |
October 22, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Denis Shelomovskij | On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:36:32 +0400, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: > 21.10.2012 1:52, David Nadlinger пишет: >> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:56:01 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen >> wrote: >> Oh, and could somebody please post a link to the latest version of the >> new std.process draft? I will probably add cross-platform support for >> constraining execution time and resource (RAM, mostly) usage, but there >> is no point in reimplementing it if it's already there. >> >> David > > Probably original discussion with links: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ The_new_std.process_163694.html > > Links from that thread: > * std.process overhaul: > https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/commits/new-std-process * druntime > changes: > https://github.com/schveiguy/druntime/commits/new-std-process > I am also hanging out for the new std.process. Any idea when the required druntime changes will go in, or if they have already? |
October 22, 2012 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Graham St Jack | On 22-10-2012 07:46, Graham St Jack wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:36:32 +0400, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: > >> 21.10.2012 1:52, David Nadlinger пишет: >>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:56:01 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen >>> wrote: >>> Oh, and could somebody please post a link to the latest version of the >>> new std.process draft? I will probably add cross-platform support for >>> constraining execution time and resource (RAM, mostly) usage, but there >>> is no point in reimplementing it if it's already there. >>> >>> David >> >> Probably original discussion with links: >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/ > The_new_std.process_163694.html >> >> Links from that thread: >> * std.process overhaul: >> https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/commits/new-std-process * druntime >> changes: >> https://github.com/schveiguy/druntime/commits/new-std-process >> > > I am also hanging out for the new std.process. Any idea when the required > druntime changes will go in, or if they have already? > I suspect they're probably some trivial POSIX/Windows API declarations, so reviewing and merging them shouldn't be a bottleneck, but somebody has to actually submit the changes as a pull request. -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex@lycus.org http://lycus.org |
January 30, 2013 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:17:31 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;)
>
> Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060.
I just created a small script using std.process, and the *pain*.. Took a look at the new std.process which easily lets you spawn a process using custom stdin/out/err, get the result etc.etc.. Looks a lot better than what we currently have.
Unfortunately, it needs some druntime changes, so I couldn't just plug it in without building dmd myself.
So.. Ping? :) Inclusion in 2.062?
|
February 03, 2013 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to simendsjo | simendsjo wrote: > On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:17:31 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >> It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;) >> >> Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060. > > I just created a small script using std.process, and the *pain*.. Took a look at the new std.process which easily lets you spawn a process using custom stdin/out/err, get the result etc.etc.. Looks a lot better than what we currently have. > > Unfortunately, it needs some druntime changes, so I couldn't just plug it in without building dmd myself. > > So.. Ping? :) Inclusion in 2.062? +1 I join Alex on this. I can't wait for improved std.process, honestly... -- Dejan Lekic dejan.lekic (a) gmail.com http://dejan.lekic.org |
February 11, 2013 Re: New std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dejan Lekic | On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:56:54 +0000, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> simendsjo wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 18:17:31 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> It's time for the periodic new std.process ping. ;)
>>>
>>> Seriously, though, what's the state of it? Can we get it into the review queue soon? It would be great to have it in 2.060.
>>
>> I just created a small script using std.process, and the *pain*.. Took a look at the new std.process which easily lets you spawn a process using custom stdin/out/err, get the result etc.etc.. Looks a lot better than what we currently have.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it needs some druntime changes, so I couldn't just plug it in without building dmd myself.
>>
>> So.. Ping? :) Inclusion in 2.062?
>
> +1 I join Alex on this. I can't wait for improved std.process, honestly...
+1. I have been using a hacked copy of the new one for ages, and would love to see it become part of phobos.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation