On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:09:42PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Issue 5796: Integrate OSProcess http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5796
Are we doing this? If so, are we forking it (I hope not), or just integrating updated package versions as Dave releases them?
This is an interesting question. I know that Camillo and Damien or somebody else made pipeable working. I suggested that the code is sent to dave for integration in his package. (I do not know if this was done). Now if we really want to have a strong interoperation with the rest of the world either OSProcess has a pharo branch and a nice packaging or may be this is time to fork. I could understand that dave does not have cycles to handle that.
Forking in itself is not a bad process when it serves a clear purpose. Look at Pharo. We did it not just for fun (and it was never an easy solution after all the effort we did since years to promote Squeak - books, videos, lectures?.) but to accomplish a vision.
So if we get a really hyper cool system to execute commands like ` in ruby then I want it immediately at the price of forking :)
Stef
PipeableOSProcess should be working in Pharo now. A Metacello configuration to load OSProcess plus part of CommandShell (PipeableOSProcess and related classes) might be helpful for Pharo. I'm not working on that, so that might be a good thing for someone to do. Dave