At 07:19 PM 1/10/01 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>>> "NI" == Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > NI> Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>
> > >> Apropos safe signals, isn't it possible to let perl6 handle avoiding
> > >> zombie processes internally? What use does having to do wait()
> yourself,
> > >> have anyway?
> >
> > NI> Valid point - perl could have a CHLD handler in C and stash away
> returned
> > NI> status to pass to wait() when it did get called.
> >
> >there are plenty of reasons to handle SIGCHLD yourself.
>
>But that was not the topic being discussed. If you DON'T handle CHLD
>is the case we were discussing.
SIGCHLD is actually one of the things I wasn't worried about. The big
reason to get this is if you fork and, since you can only really fork on
Unix platforms and the child throws you a SIGCHLD when it dies, it doesn't
seem like something that ought to be hidden.
Now, if we roll some sort of platform-independent way of firing off
children asynchronously, that'd be different. (Though I suppose magic open
may count here, but I don't know that too many folks put signal handlers in
for that case)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
