Proposal: overhaul System.Process

Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Tue Apr 29 13:20:22 EDT 2008

Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:35 -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Duncan Coutts wrote:
>>> Do you suppose we can rename the system/rawSystem given that we're
>>> already moving them from one module to another?
>>> Just off the top of my head, how about "runShellCommand" & "runProgram",
>>> better suggestions welcome.
>> Well, ideally we'd do a complete renaming sweep, e.g. runProcess should 
>> be spawnProcess (or just removed entirely), then we could use runProcess 
>> for what is currently called rawSystem.  But I've got enough flak for 
>> changing APIs in the past so I wimped out this time :-)
> Ah but this isn't a change, it's a new api, so we have complete freedom.
> We're adding a new replacement for system/rawSystem and deprecating the
> old module.

I can't think of a good naming scheme that doesn't break backwards 
compatibility.  Suggestions welcome.

Ideally we'd change runProcess to spawnProcess, and similarly for 
runCommand, runInteractiveCommand etc.  But then what do we use for 
'system' and 'rawSystem'?  Good names for these are 'runCommand' and 
'runProcess' respectively, but we can't re-use those names without 
breaking the API (we want to leave the old versions in place deprecated 
for a while).


More information about the Libraries mailing list