At 05:28 PM 3/9/00 -0500, Charles Bailey wrote:
> > To me, and perhaps only to me, the "expected behavior" would be that if you
> > sent an EOF down the input pipe(mbx) the subprocess would exit (i.e.,
> > closing the input mailbox would terminate the process). I don't know why,
> > but that seems like the right way. I guess some of this has to do with what
> > is "expected" behavior when you see the ^Z in an mbx...Just my 2 cents...
>
>It looks like Charles Lane's code'd preserve the current behavior: if you
>send an EOF to DCL and don't specifically trap it, it'll quit. If you
>send an EOF to some program running in the subprocess, it'll see an EOF
>on stdin, and can react as it wants.
>
>My concern is with stripping out EOFs that the subprocess sends back to you.
>While it does solve the problem of multiple EOFs being passed to the parent
>as its descendants complete, it'll break cases where the multiple EOFs are
>intentionally sent by a single child (typically as a sort-of OOB signal to the
>parent). I'm always happy to let you filter out junk, but get uneasy when
>we make it mandatory.
Perhaps some control code could be added to VMS::Stdio to allow this
behaviour to be enabled?
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
