You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is there any technical reason for gaol to provide its own Command abstraction over using what's available in std::process::Command? The biggest functional difference I noticed is that the gaol provided Command uses execve() to specify the environment on the spawned process while std::process::Command uses execvp(). Despite this difference, however, std::process::Command also allows for the command environment to be set with the env() and envs() methods. Is there any particular barrier preventing gaol from switching wholesale to the std implementation?
I ask because there are some useful crates, e.g. tokio-process, which directly accept or implement extra traits on top of std::process::Command, and it would be quite nice to use gaol with these libraries.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is there any technical reason for
gaol
to provide its ownCommand
abstraction over using what's available instd::process::Command
? The biggest functional difference I noticed is that thegaol
providedCommand
uses execve() to specify the environment on the spawned process whilestd::process::Command
uses execvp(). Despite this difference, however,std::process::Command
also allows for the command environment to be set with theenv()
andenvs()
methods. Is there any particular barrier preventinggaol
from switching wholesale to thestd
implementation?I ask because there are some useful crates, e.g. tokio-process, which directly accept or implement extra traits on top of
std::process::Command
, and it would be quite nice to usegaol
with these libraries.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: