On 12/25/18 3:01 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> No, that is not the intent. I merely failed to correctly convey the
> perception that others have of your code:
>
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/487260/265604
That is, of course, their privilege.
> And, having failed, I am trying again.
>
> But, probably, I should just not inform you of what others think given your
> upfront rejection to any (constructive) criticism.
The thing is, these are not new discussions. They've taken place multiple
times over the years.
> There's a case to be made for doing
> that, I suppose, but I'd rather defer to the system's default handling
> for a particular signal.
>
>
> Do as you wish, we will still be able to form our own opinion about buggy
> code.
There's nothing wrong with people disagreeing in good faith.
Even better, you can take the code itself and make what you feel are the
necessary changes, then try them out in a real-world scenario. If you
feel that read and write should never be interrupted by a caught signal,
it should be easy enough to experiment with and verify.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
