Hi Chris,
Chris Marusich writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> [...] I wonder if it would be enough to simply change "process status
>> code" to "integer status value" [...].
>
> I agree. I've attached a new patch that makes the change. It also adds
> a cross-reference that I think is
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the reply!
Mark H Weaver writes:
>> I see. Then what's the intended use of status:exit-val? I've read its
>> documentation and viewed its source a few times, and it seems like this
>> procedure basically behaves like the identity function.
>
> I'm not sure where you
Hi Chris,
Chris Marusich writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>>> scheme@(guile-user)> (status:exit-val $1)
>>> $5 = 0
>>> scheme@(guile-user)> (status:exit-val $3)
>>> $6 = 0
>>
>> Right, these procedures are meant to operate on the status value.
>
> I see. Then what's the
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 00:59:03 -0700
Chris Marusich wrote:
> Hi Mark!
>
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
> > When the manual says "exit status as returned by ‘waitpid’", it's
> > referring to the "status value" portion of what 'waitpid' returns,
> > i.e. the CDR of 'waitpid's return value.
>
> Thank
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver writes:
> When the manual says "exit status as returned by ‘waitpid’", it's
> referring to the "status value" portion of what 'waitpid' returns,
> i.e. the CDR of 'waitpid's return value.
Thank you for the clarification! It makes more sense now.
>>
Hi Chris,
Chris Marusich writes:
> I was reading about the "system" and "system*" procedures in the Guile
> manual, and it seems like the actual behavior of Guile seems to
> contradict what the manual says. I'm using Guile version 2.2.4.
>
> The Guile manual says that these procedures return
