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