• Lutger Blijdestijn (3/3) Dec 05 2010 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included support ...
• Lars T. Kyllingstad (6/9) Dec 06 2010 That is still the plan, yes. The new std.process is pretty much done,
• Lutger Blijdestijn (3/15) Dec 06 2010 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in the
• Lars T. Kyllingstad (11/28) Dec 07 2010 Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/29) Dec 07 2010 That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not
• Lars T. Kyllingstad (10/43) Dec 07 2010 Sure, feel free to do so. :) I'm very curious to see how you solved the...
• Lutger Blijdestijn (4/52) Dec 07 2010 Will you announce it if published? I'm interested in using it even thoug...
• Lars T. Kyllingstad (3/57) Dec 07 2010 Sure, that would be great. :)

Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included support for 
pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in phobos? Does it depend on 
a decision regarding the io design?

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included support
 for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in phobos? Does it
 depend on a decision regarding the io design?

That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much done, 
and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is being 
blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the changes 
were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)

-Lars

Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
 
 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included support
 for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in phobos? Does it
 depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 
 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much done,
 and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is being
 blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the changes
 were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)
 
 -Lars

Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in the 
meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 
 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
 
 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
 support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in phobos?
 Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 
 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much done,
 and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is being
 blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the changes
 were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)
 
 -Lars

 
 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in the
 meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my 
local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the module 
"std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.  Note that 
the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven Schveighoffer has 
done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.

Also be aware that there hasn't been any formal review of the code yet, 
so some design details may change.  (The new UnbufferedFile type, for 
instance, didn't sit well with everyone.)  So don't expect to be able to 
just s/ltk.process/std.process/ when it eventually gets into Phobos. ;)

-Lars

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad  
<public kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:

 On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
 support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in phobos?
 Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much done,
 and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is being
 blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the changes
 were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)

 -Lars

 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in the
 meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

 Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my
 local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the module
 "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.  Note that
 the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven Schveighoffer has
 done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.

That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not  
checked in anywhere...

Maybe I should send you my code.

-Steve

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:49:07 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
 <public kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
 
 On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
 support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in
 phobos? Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much
 done, and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is
 being blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the
 changes were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)

 -Lars

 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in
 the meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

 Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my
 local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the module
 "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.  Note
 that the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven
 Schveighoffer has done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.

 
 That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not
 checked in anywhere...
 
 Maybe I should send you my code.

Sure, feel free to do so. :)  I'm very curious to see how you solved the 
pipe stuff!

Even though we can't include it in Phobos before 3979 is fixed, we can at 
least combine our code, publish it somewhere, and start the review 
process.

Also, we should probably get the whole File buffering thing sorted out.  
That discussion kinda ebbed out without any good solution presenting 
itself...

-Lars

Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:49:07 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 
 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
 <public kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
 
 On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
 support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in
 phobos? Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much
 done, and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is
 being blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the
 changes were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)

 -Lars

 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in
 the meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

 Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in my
 local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the module
 "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.  Note
 that the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven
 Schveighoffer has done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.

 
 That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not
 checked in anywhere...
 
 Maybe I should send you my code.

 
 Sure, feel free to do so. :)  I'm very curious to see how you solved the
 pipe stuff!
 
 Even though we can't include it in Phobos before 3979 is fixed, we can at
 least combine our code, publish it somewhere, and start the review
 process.
 
 Also, we should probably get the whole File buffering thing sorted out.
 That discussion kinda ebbed out without any good solution presenting
 itself...
 
 -Lars

Will you announce it if published? I'm interested in using it even though 
api is unstable, at least I have something until std.process is finished. 
I'll report back feedback / issues if you want.

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:51:09 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 
 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:49:07 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 
 On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:47:53 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
 <public kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:
 
 On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:10:23 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

 On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:51:18 +0100, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:

 Some time ago a new std.process branch was made, which included
 support for pipes. Is there still a plan to integrate this in
 phobos? Does it depend on a decision regarding the io design?

 That is still the plan, yes.  The new std.process is pretty much
 done, and has been for a while, but its incorporation in Phobos is
 being blocked by bug 3979.  (The bug was fixed a while ago, but the
 changes were almost immediately reverted by another bug fix...)

 -Lars

 Thanks. I've noticed your personal copy at github, is it useable in
 the meantime? It doesn't suffer from the same issue?

 Yes, it works (and I just uploaded some minor changes that I had in
 my local repo).  Bug 3979 only sets in once you try to name the
 module "std.process" and compile it together with the rest of Phobos.
  Note that the code in my github repo is for POSIX only.  Steven
 Schveighoffer has done the Windows work, and I don't have his code.

 
 That reminds me, I should make sure that doesn't get lost, it's not
 checked in anywhere...
 
 Maybe I should send you my code.

 
 Sure, feel free to do so. :)  I'm very curious to see how you solved
 the pipe stuff!
 
 Even though we can't include it in Phobos before 3979 is fixed, we can
 at least combine our code, publish it somewhere, and start the review
 process.
 
 Also, we should probably get the whole File buffering thing sorted out.
 That discussion kinda ebbed out without any good solution presenting
 itself...
 
 -Lars

 
 Will you announce it if published? I'm interested in using it even
 though api is unstable, at least I have something until std.process is
 finished. I'll report back feedback / issues if you want.

Sure, that would be great. :)

-Lars