On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:24:19 -0400, Vladimir Panteleev
<vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
What I'm worried about is what we can't predict: unexpected side
effects. Disabling one approach should have a less drastic impact than
replacing it with another.
If someone depends on the side effects of one approach, it won't matter
how less drastic it is, for them it will be bad if we disable it :)
I think it's reasonable to expect phobos does what the normal OS functions
do. If we add the F_CLOEXEC to open pipes or other file descriptors, then
we could never disable that, as people may depend on that. As our current
code does NOT do that, we also may break code simply by adding that flag.
-Steve
