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 <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAHV%3D05q8k-YhRLFQXkiOK3EPVP4Wi-1CFyvzzMBSSK6RAvF%2BtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to