On Wednesday 02 February 2005 12:52 pm, "John Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, February 2, 2005 10:01 am, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. said: > > On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:59 am, "John Myers" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, February 2, 2005 1:24 am, Sebastian Flothow said: > >> > Am 2. Feb 2005 um 06:35 Uhr schrieb John Myers: > >> >> It would keep the connection to the master open, and would also > >> >> have a consistent PID (unlike a shell script, which, AFAIK, may > >> >> not). > >> > > >> > A shell script itself has a consistent PID. However, any command > >> > called within a shell script is assigned a new PID. > >> > >> That's not entirely true. Subshells are not executed in the same > >> process as the script. > > > > Right, but a subshell *is* another command. It can be just as easily > > run from a prompt. > > Yes, it is, but it is also part of the original line > > I know that, but one might wish to be able to use the commands to > manipulate the progress data inside a subshell. Thus, we cannot rely on > PIDs alone. I can't think of such a situation off the top of my head, > but it would be silly to ignore it. Also, one might even need to call > the connect command from inside a subshell for some reason.
Eh, your project, your call. Just doesn't seem to be that useful to me. However, (unless I misunderstand IPC under linux, and I probably do) you'll have to send a PID to the daemon anyway, if you want to masquerade your PID, you are welcome to. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy -- [email protected] mailing list
