guile-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#15228: making open-process public [Was: Re: Using open-input-output-


From: Amirouche Boubekki
Subject: bug#15228: making open-process public [Was: Re: Using open-input-output-pipe]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:48:20 +0100
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2

Moving the conversation to guile-devel.

Can I have feedback on the patch I sent for #15228

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15228

On 2018-01-22 16:40, Edwin Watkeys wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for all the input. Here a simple implementation that I've come up
with; I'm not sure it's bullet-proof. This scenario is so common—using
open-input-output-port on a Unix filter—that I would argue that the rw-port
design is broken; there really should be a way to close the input and
output independently. I checked back on the mailing list to the genesis of
this feature, and there didn't seem to be a lot of discussion of the
design. Something that's analogous to open-process, which returns multiple
values, or a hypothetical (call-with-port-input-output ARGS (lambda (in
out) ...)) would seem to be better. I'm going to try out these ideas when I
get a bit of spare time.

(define (generate-digest str)
  (call-with-values
      (lambda () (open-process OPEN_BOTH "shasum" "-a" "256"))
    (lambda (read-port write-port pid)
      (write str write-port)
      (close-port write-port)
      (let ((line (read-line read-port)))
(close-port read-port)
(car (string-split line #\space))))))

Regards,
Edwin

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Chris Vine <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 01/21/2018 12:31 PM, Edwin Watkeys wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to write a procedure that processes some input through a
> > unix utility. Open-input-output-pipe returns a bidirectional pipe
> > that I can both read and write to. However, there is no way that I
> > can figure out to tell the external process that input is complete,
> > as there is no way to determine the output port of the rw-port and
> > therefore no way to close it. Closing an rw-port closes both the
> > read and write ports.
> >
> > Open-input-output-port therefore seems useful for line-based
> > external processes but not for ones that function on the entirety
> > of user input e.g. wc and sort.
> >
> > Is my analysis of the situation roughly accurate?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Edwin

If you want fine-grained control, you might want to look at some of the
procedures in guile-lib's (os process) module, and in particular the
'run-with-pipe' procedure, or using its 'run-concurrently+' procedure
with guile's 'pipe' (the parent can block on its read pipe once it has
completed writing to the child until the child process closes the other end of the pipe upon finishing, causing the parent to get an eof-object
provided it has itself previously closed the write end of its read
pipe).

Otherwise if you want to stick to guile proper, you may have to do it by hand. As 'pipe' gives you an input and output port for each pipe which
can be independently closed, you could use two of these with the
'dup2', 'fork' and 'execl' procedures.  It's tedious though.

Chris



--
Amirouche ~ amz3 ~ http://www.hyperdev.fr



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]