Zbigniew scripsit: > But you might have more success arguing that "process" should not ever > invoke a wait() call when you close its ports, and instead leave that > up to the user. Since you receive the PID from "process", you can > process-wait on it, and retrieve the error code yourself. This way, > process does the dirty work of setting up and tearing down a new > process and bi-directional pipes, while you can do the easy work of > wait().
Furthermore, this makes for a sensible approach to disposition. You get three values back from "process", two ports and a PID. It's up to you to close each port and wait on the PID in order to properly dispose of everything. > What do people think? Should the wait() be removed from process? Yes, I'd say so; it's not hard to insert a call to "wait" right after closing the input port. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and his majesty. --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
