View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
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?
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?
"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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home