Of course ! Inter-OS APIs are such a pain. I think you do the right thing by explicitating the differences regarding various OSes on the scribbled doc page. Maybe just documenting that: * subprocess-pid retains the pid forever after the child has stopped running * subprocess-pid returns 0 (or invalid-pid) on Windows and BSD and Linux and OSX (who knows the bright future of Racket ? :) ) if the process spawning failed would be sufficient to write production code with defined behaviour. I'd certainly be satisfied.
Cheers, Bertrand Le sam. 8 févr. 2020 à 17:58, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> a écrit : > At Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:46:06 +0100, Bertrand Augereau wrote: > > You're right, but wouldn't using the posix_spawn family have better > > semantics, better performance, and would allow to unify between POSIX and > > Windows behaviours nicely ? :) > > It's the usual problem: posix_spawn() doesn't quite support all of the > things Racket does between fork() and exec(). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5e3ee899.1c69fb81.a3dd4.306bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAHV%3D05q8k-YhRLFQXkiOK3EPVP4Wi-1CFyvzzMBSSK6RAvF%2BtA%40mail.gmail.com.
