I am not saying that we should not process the SIGHUP signal. We should process it. But that leads us to the next two choices.
1. The interpreter safely terminate the script without passing the signal on to the user. 2. We pass the signal on to the user and let them perform their own termination processing. Number 2 can lead to big problems because of the console I/O issues. But if we disable console I/O how do we process console input if the user performs a CHARIN or a LINEIN function? Anything we give back to the user will lead to inappropriate results because the script can not determine whether the terminal is gone away or not. Was the input from a real user or something else? I do not think we can come up with a simple solution to choice number 2. So let's not go there at all. David Ashley On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 19:38 +0000, Mike Cowlishaw wrote: > If the problem is 'the terminal' could not Rexx simply disable output to it > once > SIGHUP is received? Pretty odd to stop programs closing files, etc., just > because the teminal went away (perhaps due to a network breakage)? > > In short: make the programming easier (and less system-dependent on oddities > like this) rather than forcing the programmer -- and all their users -- to > learn > about "nohup" in order to get their program to run safely under *ix. > > Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
