Branko Äibej wrote: >Hmm, looking at our apr_proc_t, I see we _also_ use plain pid_t in there >(and define it in apr.h on platforms that don't have it). This explains >why we don't have an apr_os_proc_get -- users will simple use the pid >member from apr_proc_t. But we don't have one of those > Eeek. By "one of those" I meant an apr_os_proc_t, of course, not a pid_t. What I meant to say was: that without and apr_os_proc_t member, apr_proc_t is funcamentally broken. There, that's clearer, I hope.
> in apr_proc_t at >all, which seems just a bit strange to me, and upon reflection I think >that apr_proc_t is fundamentally broken because of that. It might be a >bit hard to unbreak it while still maintaining backward compatibility, >though... > > > -- Brane Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
