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.or.atwrote:
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