> I dunno how much we should push this "processes are a single port" > abstraction. In many ways for OPEN_BOTH pipes it's easier to deal with > an input and an output port and a PID instead of the pipe abstraction. > WDYT? We could just expose `open-process' from (ice-9 popen) to start > with. It would be good to allow other fd's or ports to map to the child > as well, e.g. stderr or any particular port; but I don't know what > interface we should expose.
Since patching was inconvenient for me, I eventually used: (use-modules ((ice-9 popen) #:select (open-process))) Which works even though `open-process` is not exported. For me, exporting `open-process` and documenting it would be enough. I also like the Racket interface to processes: <https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/subprocess.html> (I've mostly used the `process` procedure.)
