Greetings, I hereby announce the release of the Pipe library, a library for piping data through a pipeline of processes. A web page with (hopefully) all the necessary info and a simple example can be found at http://iki.fi/matti.niemenmaa/pipe/ The package is at Hackage: http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/Pipe Feel free to comment on any part of it, either here or straight to my e-mail address. I've tested it on Windows XP and Linux (Gentoo) and GHC 6.8.2 and 6.8.3. Since the code is rather low-level it'd be interesting to hear whether it works on other systems, say the BSDs or OS X. -- Matti Niemenmaa
matti.niemenmaa+news:
Greetings,
I hereby announce the release of the Pipe library, a library for piping data through a pipeline of processes.
A web page with (hopefully) all the necessary info and a simple example can be found at http://iki.fi/matti.niemenmaa/pipe/
The package is at Hackage: http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/Pipe
Feel free to comment on any part of it, either here or straight to my e-mail address.
I've tested it on Windows XP and Linux (Gentoo) and GHC 6.8.2 and 6.8.3. Since the code is rather low-level it'd be interesting to hear whether it works on other systems, say the BSDs or OS X.
Interesting. Does it depend on an unreleased version of the process library? -- Don
Don Stewart wrote:
Interesting. Does it depend on an unreleased version of the process library?
Indeed it does. Actually most of the code was written using the current released version, I just jumped the gun a bit when I saw how nice the new interface was. I'm hoping that the release of the new process library (GHC ticket #2233) isn't that far off, which is why I figured I'd shove Pipe out in this state. If that's not the case and it turns out that people want to use Pipe without the hassle, I might be persuaded to release a version that doesn't need it. The only 'real' dependency that can't be worked around is the handlePipe function, which is only a non-exported optimization that gets applied via RULES.
Don Stewart wrote:
Interesting. Does it depend on an unreleased version of the process library?
by the way, is there a policy for when new versions of packages maintained by libraries@h.o are *released*? Or do patches just collect in the darcs repository until they're picked up by some major release like GHC's? I would tend to think that for any change nontrivial enough to be discussed on libraries@, why not quickly release the newer version with an appropriately incremented version number? -Isaac
Isaac Dupree wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
Interesting. Does it depend on an unreleased version of the process library?
by the way, is there a policy for when new versions of packages maintained by libraries@h.o are *released*? Or do patches just collect in the darcs repository until they're picked up by some major release like GHC's? I would tend to think that for any change nontrivial enough to be discussed on libraries@, why not quickly release the newer version with an appropriately incremented version number?
There are some further changes we've been discussing, see Duncan's message here: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2008-May/009695.html and I'd like to batch all these together in one release. Cheers, Simon
participants (4)
-
Don Stewart -
Isaac Dupree -
Matti Niemenmaa -
Simon Marlow