Output redirection for Base Process library

[jfiat_es, 2017-01-16 15:08:45]

I did not try to compile or run.
But from my quick review, it sounds ok.
Next step for me .. try with existing code based on previous EiffelProcess lib.

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/base_process.e
File base/base_process.e (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/base_process.e#newcode390
base/base_process.e:390: output_redirect_to_stream: output_direction =
{BASE_REDIRECTION}.to_stream
Should BASE_REDIRECTION  be named BASE_DIRECTION ? or BASE_OUTPUT_DIRECTION to
follow the `output_direction` naming.

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/platform/unix/process_un...
File base/platform/unix/process_unix_process_manager.e (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/platform/unix/process_un...
base/platform/unix/process_unix_process_manager.e:352: buffer.keep_head (0)
What is the diff between keep_head (0) and wipe_out ?

This is not critical, just wondering ...

for me "wipe_out" sounds more obvious.
Here I was thinking if `0` was expected .. or not.
It seems so, but it invites the reader to check , where `wipe_out` has a clear
meaning to me.

[alexk_es, 2017-02-07 09:45:34]

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/base_process.e
File base/base_process.e (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/base_process.e#newcode390
base/base_process.e:390: output_redirect_to_stream: output_direction =
{BASE_REDIRECTION}.to_stream
On 2017/01/16 15:08:45, jfiat_es wrote:
> Should BASE_REDIRECTION  be named BASE_DIRECTION ? or BASE_OUTPUT_DIRECTION to
> follow the `output_direction` naming.

There is also redirection for input, so BASE_OUTPUT_DIRECTION does not fit. As
to DIRECTION/REDIRECTION, it looks like "redirect" and "standard handle" is a
pretty common pair, so the term is not invented just for this library.

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/platform/unix/process_un...
File base/platform/unix/process_unix_process_manager.e (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/312290043/diff/1/base/platform/unix/process_un...
base/platform/unix/process_unix_process_manager.e:352: buffer.keep_head (0)
On 2017/01/16 15:08:45, jfiat_es wrote:
> What is the diff between keep_head (0) and wipe_out ?
> 
> This is not critical, just wondering ...
> 
> for me "wipe_out" sounds more obvious.
> Here I was thinking if `0` was expected .. or not.
> It seems so, but it invites the reader to check , where `wipe_out` has a clear
> meaning to me.

It was the reverse to me, i.e. here 0 indicates explicitly that count will be 0,
and with wipe_out I have to remember what is actually does. So, I'm happy either
way. I can add a check "count = 0" for clarity.

[alexk_es, 2017-02-07 14:22:33]

Committed at rev#99792.