From: Simon Strandgaard <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@...>
Date: 2003-05-13T00:22:51+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR for child execution

On Tue, 13 May 2003 00:49:34 +0900, Brian Candler wrote:

> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:01:19PM +0900, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
>> > I mean, I'm guessing you want something like '$deferr' like '$defout',
>> > right? So that rb_warn sends to $deferr, and you can map this variable to
>> > point to some other object?
>> 
>> I see no reason to introduce a '$deferr'... But this could be possible 
>> sideeffect of this.
>> rb_warn outputs to stderr, perhaps it should output to rb_stderr ?
> 
> It's the same thing at the moment, because rb_stderr just encapsulates
> stderr.

"at the moment"... agree. This is what I hope will get changed in Ruby 
in the future.

 
>> > - It doesn't follow the Unix API model, therefore violates POLS:
>> >   "system" should not create pipes to the child. "popen" should.
>> 
>> Disagree!  
>> What is POLS ?  
>> where can I read more about the standard Unix API model ?
> 
> "The Principle of Least Surprise"

I know that principle.. I just didn't recognized the abbreviation.

I think that Ruby "at the moment" violates POLS, because everything is
hardcoded to use stdout/stderr. 
It makes much more sense inheriting rb_stdout/rb_stderr instead.


--
Simon Strandgaard