Andreas Schwab wrote:
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Doesn't 'exec' replace the process? I get the others (I think), but I don't understand what shell is left to "stop execution" after an exec.exec can fail.
D'oh, fail to *do* anything... I was thinking if whatever was exec'd failed :-). Yes, that makes sense, of course.
-- Matthew HIPPOS wallow slightly in the MUDDY RIVER What do you want to do next? > WALLOW IN MUDDY RIVER You join HIPPOS.
