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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.