Would love this kind of API to be standardized, thank you for this proposal!
There are a lot of different packages you could use or build your own around Process but they tend to have a lot of short comings when it comes with truly being async.
Has this proposal already been approved and is being worked on or are we waiting for more discussion / design?
The review was opened. We are going to do a second round of review once @icharleshuincorporates feedback and updates the proposal.
Very interested. At work I've created a robust wrapper API over Process. It functions well except for subprocesses that are truly interactive, which I define as a process that requires a TTY.
Can the authors comment on the possibility of adding a control/configuration semantic for handling processes that require a TTY?
I believe that the current thread about this is: [Review, 3rd] SF-0007: Subprocess