> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:55 PM
> To: 'Bill Tutt'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Win32 pid_t semantics
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Yes, and this has been a pain in the rear since a certain someone on
> http argued that there is only a simple int, and it was unfair to poor
> unix folk that something as simple as a process id must be a
> transparent
> type.
>
> The proper way, and I should have screamed louder at the time, is to
> cache the handle -plus- the true pid. I agree it is stupid
> for us to use
> the HANDLE hProc over the id (given a single choice)... if
> you want to
> work up all the ramifications of using the idProc instead
> please do so
> and offer up a patch. I don't see going back to a
> transparent type here,
> so if you can make sense of it, great :-)
>
> Bill
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Tutt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:33 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Win32 pid_t semantics
> >
> >
> > Does anybody see the need for someone to create some patches to
> > threadproc/win32/proc.c to use real PIDs as opposed to the
> per/process
> > HANDLEs?
> >
> > It really isn't that difficul to go from a PID and a process object
> > handle. (OpenProcess)
> >
> > Please, cc me in any replies, I'm not on the list atm.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
>
