At Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:36:34 -0400, Jonathan Schuster wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Tobias Hammer <tobias.ham...@dlr.de>wrote: > > > Custodians can have entries that are cleaned up on program exit and > > entries that are only cleaned up whenever a custodian is (regularly) shut > > down. > > > > See > http://docs.racket-lang.org/**inside/Custodians.html<http://docs.racket-lang.or > g/inside/Custodians.html> > > scheme_add_managed vs. scheme_add_managed_close_on_**exit > > > > As far as i can tell the subprocess is added with scheme_add_managed. > > Patching this to *_close_on_exit changes the behavior to what the OP > > expect. I'm not sure if close on exit or not is the better default for > > subprocesses, better ask Matthew what his intentions were. > > > > Thanks Tobias, it looks like this is the key issue. I'm curious what > Matthew has to say on it.
I think this change would be good. > This brings up another question, though. I would expect the custodian to > shut down all of its managed resources when Racket exits, and not just with > an explicit shutdown. What are the cases in which one wants to avoid > shutting down a resource on exit? The original reason was just to avoid useless work, since everything originally registered to a custodian was something that an OS would clean up when a process exits. At this point, I'm not sure whether anything relies on the current behavior. I can't think of an example where it would be important to avoid shutting down a custodian-managed resource on exit, but I'm inclined to leave things alone, since there is at least a way to get the always-shutdown behavior for a given resource. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
