Re: Subprocess API.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:59:39 +0100 Chris Vine wrote: > ... you could consider launching the new process in C code via the > guile FFI so you can ensure that no non-async-signal-safe code is > called at the wrong time; but presumably you would still have by some > means to

Re: Subprocess API.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:14:22 +0200 Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > This works exactly as you would expect from its POSIX equivalents > > and has the advantage that you can read from the pipe as the > > sub-process is proceeding rather than just collect at the end.

Re: Subprocess API.

Hi Chris, > This works exactly as you would expect from its POSIX equivalents and > has the advantage that you can read from the pipe as the sub-process is > proceeding rather than just collect at the end. Thank you ! Following your suggestion, I ended-up with : --8<---cut