Hi,
ri...@happyleptic.org skribis:
> -[ Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:55:22PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès ]
>> Like in C, it???s up to the application to close those ports that it
>> considers worth closing upon exec.
[...]
> OK then, so it's not a bug and I have to live with this behavior
> (BTW, if
Mark H Weaver writes:
> `load' is optional in the R5RS, and it has been removed entirely from
> the R6RS, which was designed with compilers in mind. Guile allows the
> use of `load', but its compiler assumes that undeclared identifiers are
> top-level _variables_, not syntax. This seems a reason
Your arguments are very convincing, sir.
ri...@happyleptic.org writes:
>> The problem is that the compiler, while compiling test.scm, sees no
>> syntax declaration of `without-exception', and therefore assumes that
>> `without-exception' is simply a top-level variable.
>
> So, according to you, should I fill a bug report or I am overusing
-[ Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:55:22PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès ]
> Like in C, it???s up to the application to close those ports that it
> considers worth closing upon exec.
I was under the impression that the idiom was to close all files before
execing a coprocess, but I just checked POSIX popen, R
Hi!
ri...@happyleptic.org skribis:
> The problem is not that the *ports* are not closed (they are), but that
> the other *files* (that are not port) are not closed.
Like in C, it’s up to the application to close those ports that it
considers worth closing upon exec.
If what you want is to close
The problem is not that the *ports* are not closed (they are), but that
the other *files* (that are not port) are not closed.
When a program exec another one, it's supposed to close all files but 0,
1 and 2. open-process only closes the ports, so if you have other files
opened (that you have opene
