Browse thread
[Caml-list] uname for Ocaml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Issac Trotts <ijtrotts@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] uname for Ocaml |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:53:12PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>
> Issac cited me after his reply - I put it in the right order.
>
> >>>>> "Issac" == Issac Trotts <ijtrotts@ucdavis.edu> writes:
>
>
>
> Issac> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 04:23:03PM +0100, Basile
> Issac> STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> If you need to call uname(2) from some Ocaml program you can
> >> steal my tiny code in util.ml util.mli util_ml.c on
> >>
> >> http://www2.poesia-filter.org:8000/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/PoesiaSoft/PoesiaMonIcap/
> >>
> >> I actually wish that uname(2) will be incorporated in the Unix
> >> module.
> >>
>
>
> Issac> An alternative would be to use #load "unix.cma"
>
> I agree with Issac, but I still wish that most (or perhaps all) of the
> standard Posix system calls should be callable from Unix module!
>
> Issac> let uname() = let (inc, outc) = Unix.open_process "uname"
> Issac> in let name = input_line inc in close_in inc; close_out
> Issac> outc; name;;
>
> Won't work if the (malicious) user have an unrelated uname in his
> path. I suggest at least using the "/bin/uname" which should be a
> POSIX standard IIRC. Also, forking a shell process for each system
> call might be not optimal (and not robust).
>
> Also, my code return the equivalent of /bin/uname -a
>
> Issac> Here's a more general way to capture the stdout of a Unix
> Issac> call:
>
> Issac> let syscall cmd = let (inc, outc) = Unix.open_process cmd
> Issac> in let buf = Buffer.create 16 in (try while true do
> Issac> Buffer.add_channel buf inc 1 done with _ -> ()); close_in
> Issac> inc; close_out outc; Buffer.contents buf;;
>
> Thanks for this suggestion, but why not use Unix.open_process_in in
> this and similar cases?
You're right: it's shorter to say
let sys_call cmd =
let inc = Unix.open_process_in cmd in
let buf = Buffer.create 16 in
(try while true do Buffer.add_channel buf inc 1 done with _ -> ());
close_in inc;
Buffer.contents buf;;
Or we can break the call results into lines:
let rec input_lines file =
try
let ln = input_line file in
ln :: input_lines file
with
End_of_file -> [];;
let sys_lines cmd =
let pipe = Unix.open_process_in cmd in
let lines = input_lines pipe in
close_in f;
lines;;
Sometimes it would be better to iterate a function over the lines:
let sys_iter f cmd =
let pipe = Unix.open_process_in cmd in
(try while true do f (input_line pipe) done with _ -> ());
close_in pipe;;
This can be used for things like
sys_iter print_endline "ls";;
Issac
--
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners