Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi Edwin, > >> > So if you just close the file descriptor, but don't remove it from the >> > task list, you'll get a "Key conflict" error when the next time a new >> > socket with that file descriptor number is assigned a 'task', or when >

Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Edwin, > > So if you just close the file descriptor, but don't remove it from the > > task list, you'll get a "Key conflict" error when the next time a new > > socket with that file descriptor number is assigned a 'task', or when > > the event handler processing '*Run' passes the closed file de

Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
Hi Alex On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi Edwin, > >> > But both are necessary: (close S) to free the socket file descriptor, >> > and (task S) to remove the corresponding entry from the list in '*Run'. >> >> is this in the context of multiple picolisp processes? figur

Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Edwin, > > But both are necessary: (close S) to free the socket file descriptor, > > and (task S) to remove the corresponding entry from the list in '*Run'. > > is this in the context of multiple picolisp processes? figured S is > just a socket and calling (close) in a non forking server would

Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
Hi Alex, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Instead of enclosing it in (task (close S)), two separate calls (close > S) and (task S) would also be all right (just a little bigger). > > But both are necessary: (close S) to free the socket file descriptor, > and (task S) to

Re: understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Edwin, > in http.l, i see a lot of (task (close S)) usage. > > from the docs, (task) says it's a front end to the *Run global and > created a (job) environment. That's right. > isn't (close) simple enough to just let it rip? why should it be > enclosed in a (task). Instead of enclosing it

understanding (task)

2011-03-25 Thread Edwin Eyan Moragas
Hi list, in http.l, i see a lot of (task (close S)) usage. from the docs, (task) says it's a front end to the *Run global and created a (job) environment. isn't (close) simple enough to just let it rip? why should it be enclosed in a (task). /e -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?s