Thread overview | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 09, 2012 The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Wasn't someone working on a std.process overhaul? What ever happened to that? |
April 09, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On Monday, April 09, 2012 18:31:05 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > Wasn't someone working on a std.process overhaul? What ever happened to that? Lars and Steven did it a while back, but the Windows port required changes in the Windows runtime that comes with dmd (due to a pipe-related bug IIRC), so there's been no point in reviewing it. I _think_ that Walter might have finally gotten those changes in in the last release, but I don't know. Regardless, until those changes are in, the new std.process is pretty much stuck. You can find the code here though: https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/tree/new-std-process - Jonathan M Davis |
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1555.1334014282.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > On Monday, April 09, 2012 18:31:05 Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> Wasn't someone working on a std.process overhaul? What ever happened to that? > > Lars and Steven did it a while back, but the Windows port required changes > in > the Windows runtime that comes with dmd (due to a pipe-related bug IIRC), > so > there's been no point in reviewing it. I _think_ that Walter might have > finally > gotten those changes in in the last release, but I don't know. Regardless, > until those changes are in, the new std.process is pretty much stuck. You > can > find the code here though: > > https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/tree/new-std-process > Oh yea. *Now* I remember asking the same thing before and getting pretty much the same answer... I didn't mean to sound like I'm nagging anyone about it. It's not urgent for me right now. It's just that whenever I get to thinking about the idea of heavy cmdline-scripting style stuff in D, it occurs to me that the std.process imporovements would be a big help, and then I manage to completely forget everything about it except a vague recollection that there was some sort of std.process stuff on the horizon ;) |
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On 4/9/12 9:38 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message
>> https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/tree/new-std-process
>>
>
> Oh yea. *Now* I remember asking the same thing before and getting pretty
> much the same answer...
Shall we add that to the review queue?
Andrei
|
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:48:26 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote: > On 4/9/12 9:38 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message >>> https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/tree/new-std-process >>> >> >> Oh yea. *Now* I remember asking the same thing before and getting pretty >> much the same answer... I think you must have felt a disturbance in the force. Literally yesterday at around 8:30 am, I finally got around to verifying 2.058 includes the pipe fix (and it does!), so I think we are clear to get this ready for review. Hopefully by 2.060 (2.059 is out for beta right now). > Shall we add that to the review queue? It's on the trello board for phobos reviews, in development. I need to get in touch with Lars, it's his baby. BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I want to test something. -Steve |
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On 2012-04-10 13:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially > when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread > ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main > platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I > want to test something. > > -Steve I agree. I recommend you use the git shell, which is basically cygwin. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg | On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:41:23 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-10 13:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially
>> when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread
>> ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main
>> platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I
>> want to test something.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> I agree. I recommend you use the git shell, which is basically cygwin.
I do. I still hate it :) I suppose this time it was because I had to merge specifically 2.058 changes, so I had to use a tag (never did that before, and because of my typo, it wasn't working).
-Steve
|
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On 2012-04-10 13:47, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:41:23 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-04-10 13:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> >>> BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially >>> when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread >>> ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main >>> platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I >>> want to test something. >>> >>> -Steve >> >> I agree. I recommend you use the git shell, which is basically cygwin. > > I do. I still hate it :) Can't argue with you there :) This kind of software development works so much better on a Posix system. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
April 10, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On 10-04-2012 13:47, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:41:23 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-04-10 13:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> >>> BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially >>> when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread >>> ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main >>> platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I >>> want to test something. >>> >>> -Steve >> >> I agree. I recommend you use the git shell, which is basically cygwin. > > I do. I still hate it :) I suppose this time it was because I had to > merge specifically 2.058 changes, so I had to use a tag (never did that > before, and because of my typo, it wasn't working). > > -Steve Do you use mintty? It _really_ helps. It's much better than those dumb bash-in-cmd.exe approaches. -- - Alex |
April 11, 2012 Re: The new std.process? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Steven Schveighoffer | On Tuesday, 10 April 2012 at 11:18:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:48:26 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote: > >> On 4/9/12 9:38 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> https://github.com/kyllingstad/phobos/tree/new-std-process >>>> >>> >>> Oh yea. *Now* I remember asking the same thing before and getting pretty >>> much the same answer... > > I think you must have felt a disturbance in the force. Literally yesterday at around 8:30 am, I finally got around to verifying 2.058 includes the pipe fix (and it does!), so I think we are clear to get this ready for review. Hopefully by 2.060 (2.059 is out for beta right now). I must have felt the same disturbance. I logged in to Trello *by coincidence* mere minutes after you had checked this off the to-do list, and it's been months since the last time I logged in there. >> Shall we add that to the review queue? > > It's on the trello board for phobos reviews, in development. I need to get in touch with Lars, it's his baby. Also by coincidence, I decided to drop by the NG, and what do you know; a thread about std.process! :) I agree it's high time to get this module ready for review. Now that you have verified that pipes finally work on Windows, what remains is mostly cosmetic. I think I'll have time to work on it this weekend. > BTW, I can't stress how much I dislike windows D development, especially when I have to use git. Linux just seems so much easier, that I dread ever having to test D windows stuff. I suppose if it was my main platform, I wouldn't have to scrap around setting shit up every time I want to test something. I can't stress enough how happy I was that you offered to do the Windows part of the module. ;) -Lars |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation