Re: [Chicken-users] Fwd: Re: process-wait

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Sep 3 2011, Alan Post wrote:

> but it is important
> to me to be able to wait for children I spawn and collect their exit
> status--this is a feature I use and need to retain.
>
> If the runtime is going to change the way that this works, I
> still need the ability to check the status of my child processes,
> and not to have that all automatically done.

Rest assured!

As long as I take the pain, there is no default like "spawn and forget".
At worst something alike might be the default on exit.

However my euphoria from the last messages is gone anyway.
Please take my previous utterances seriously if you do use signals
and like to help.  But the current state of affairs is not as great
as it appeared to be after testing on two machines (an IA64 laptop
and an Sheeva Plug) but both behind the same network link.

In the meantime I tried to deploy the very same thing on two IA64 virtual
machines with full networks connections.  And what can I say: it's not
working well.  Full load appears to be fine, but signals get lost
when load is too low.  As it seems to be.

But: I made a mistake anyway: I have this get-rid-of-pid function,
which by it's name means: "do what I mean"; and sure it does not.
Hence I'm unsure where my bug actually lives.

/Jerry