And an especially nice thing (I'm dreaming) would be callbacks for process and device I/O, maybe even some sort of unification with sockets. That would remove the need for polling in a send loop.
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > This is a fascinating thread. When all this is sussed out, a nice thing to > have is a function that takes arguements for all the heretofore literals, and > does the deed. It can be added to the master library. > > Bob S > > >> On Aug 2, 2019, at 07:13 , Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode >> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >> >> I'm assuming you can send the ^c down the process connection. That is, write >> to the opened process. Wait a bit after that or look at the response, and >> then shut down the polling send-loop and then close the connection if it is >> not already closed, >> >> It might be that simply closing the connection to the process will cause it >> to shutdown gracefully. However, it would be nice to see the graceful >> shutdown. >> >> I'd collect the reads and put them in a field on a stack just for monitoring >> the output. You can make it development only or you can make it part of your >> thing. This will allow you to see what is going on. It also allows you to >> see why Dar's idea of sending ^c doesn't work. > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
