[PD] popen vs shell bug

[Pedro Lopes]

It could also be interesting to kill the process from pd. A bit of kill
scripting is easy.

About implementing, I can try to sketch something out.. but nothing earlier
than the 16th... I have a deliverable to get ready until then! :(


Best regards,
Pedro

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>wrote:

>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Pedro Lopes wrote:
>
>  >   #!/bin/bash
>> >   echo "this goes to stdout"
>> >   echo "this goes to stderr" 1>&2
>> >(Which should have been obvious from the familiar "pd -stderr 2>&1")
>>
>> Yep I use a similar trick in UNIX find, like trying to find .pd files:
>> - find / -name "*.pd*" -type f -print 2>/dev/null
>>
>>
>> >I am thinking of the ideal version of this, an object that would give you
>> an inlet for STDIN then two >outlets for STDOUT and STDERR, plus a status
>> outlet and an inlet to set what to run.  It could be >something like this:
>>
>> >[process /usr/bin/python]
>>
>> >Then you could send python bits to it via the first inlet, and receive
>> the reply via the outlets.  So >something like a cleaner [shell].
>>
>> NIce hc. That's an interesting object, sending messages in a simple way to
>> a shell process running in the background should be fairly easy. Just didn't
>> get what you mean by status outlet..
>>
>
>
> Want to implement it? :-D  The status outlet would give you info like the
> name of the process running, whether its still running, etc.
>
> .hc
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> machines to execute.
>  - from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
>
>


-- 
Pedro Lopes
contacto: jazz at radiozero.pt
website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100702/ad9cc9bb/attachment.htm>