-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Expand Process API #1757
Expand Process API #1757
Conversation
Not only this, but we also need to rework process API to make it much more consistent:
|
Oh, agreed. But are you good with merging this as-is (after I test it) , as a first step? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
patch to fix the documentation.
thanks, i hate it. But I've also implemented it. |
Doing something we hate is a part of life. No one gets to choose to do only the stuff they like. Your token attempt at writing them (and subsequently snarky comments about the whole thing) is really frustrating at the least and borderline offensive to me. It's not hard to just take a look at other documentation in the project and LuaCATS documentation (I even GAVE the link) to come up with something correct. I am just asking you to do this so that I don't have to come back two months later, attempting to write documentation and spending a lot of time researching and interviewing people. Please don't make it any harder for people people like us who cares. |
You say it was a token attempt; but I'll be honest, it was a genuine one. Even though I don't like the scheme we've chosen, I still did do it. I honestly didn't feel it necessary to describe the creation of the stream, for example, because it's not a public API; I described, to me, what the important functions were.
Your own attempt is still missing things, for example. I even cleaned it up a bit, and expanded it slightly, in good faith after you submitted it with no prompting; see aaa94bc. I wouldn't do that if I truly didn't want to play by the rules. There's clearly a line to be drawn here about exactly how much documentation is warranted. I clearly lean to the leaner side of things; evidently, your line is more towards the explicit. That's OK. It doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it. My "thanks, I hate it comment" and the few lines on discord were really more of a joke: i.e. I hate doing this, but I'm doing it anyway. We've already had that discussion, and yeah; I'll stick by our communal decision. And, I'll refrain from joking about documentation if it is a sore point. |
And, I'm sorry I acted snarky. It wasn't fair to you. I'll try and be more professional about the stuff I disagree with going forward. |
I guess this needs to be required at least once by something, or it won't be available, right? |
Added in into |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm no too sold on this being added directly inside process
, but it'll do for now.
So, I'm putting this here as a brief expansion for
process
.A bunch of plugins use this paradigm where they create a coroutine, and yield until they get output.
This just make it a lot easier to do that, and standardizes things around a "lua-like" filehandle (very similar to
popen
) that can easily read/write the actual amount of bytes you want it to write, and will make it a lot easier to write bug-free code in plugins that use the process api. Now, you can simply:and be on your merry way.