Re: [Bug-gnubg] Severe side effects of makebearoff

[Holger]

At 17:02 28.11.2002 +0100, Jim Segrave wrote:
>On Thu 28 Nov 2002 (16:41 +0100), Holger wrote:
>> At 16:28 28.11.2002 +0100, Jim Segrave wrote:
>> >Nonetheless, using '&&' should force makebearoff to finish before
>> >makebearoff1 can start.
>> 
>> Hmm, no. && also only operates at shell level and only processes the return
>> value. Since makebearoff returns without an error, execution is passed on
>> to the next command. Am I wrong?
>
>The && should be implemented so that the second command only executes
>if the first one is completed successfully. If the first one fails,
>the second should never be started.

But it does return before termination. Obviously with a return value
indicating success. But it's not done yet.
It seems much like if you would run something on UNIX with an ampersand,
detaching the process. But I don't know whether on UNIX it gives then any
meaningful return value. (It hardly can.)

>> 
>> Btw, there's _no_ output from either makebearoff nor makebearoff1. At other
>> times I've seen some.
>
>Yes - makebearoff should output some text about what it's going to do
>and a counter to tell you how far it's got (to stderr).

I suppose because of running detached it lost its standard I/O channels and
cannot write anything.

Regards,

        Holger