[Chicken-users] Re: Removing wait from process

[Kon Lovett]

On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:43 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> Zbigniew scripsit:
>
> > But you might have more success arguing that "process" should not  
> > ever
> > invoke a wait() call when you close its ports, and instead leave that
> > up to the user.  Since you receive the PID from "process", you can
> > process-wait on it, and retrieve the error code yourself.  This way,
> > process does the dirty work of setting up and tearing down a new
> > process and bi-directional pipes, while you can do the easy work of
> > wait().
>
> Furthermore, this makes for a sensible approach to disposition.   
> You get
> three values back from "process", two ports and a PID.  It's up to you
> to close each port and wait on the PID in order to properly
> dispose of everything.
>
> > What do people think?  Should the wait() be removed from process?
>
> Yes, I'd say so; it's not hard to insert a call to "wait" right after
> closing the input port.

I had to add much nonsense so 'osprocess' can access the exit status  
when the ports are closed. But keeping the current behavior was  
important, or so I thought.

A couple of points:

1) 'process-wait' in posixunix throws an exception upon an error but  
doesn't in posixwin. (Think both should throw exception.)

2) 'process' waits automatically in posixunix but not in posixwin.  
(Think shouldn't wait.)

3) 'process' will throw an exception for abnormal exit in posixunix  
but not in posixwin. (Think shouldn't throw exception.)

I would like to get these in parallel.

> --
> John Cowan  address@hidden    http://ccil.org/~cowan
> Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a  
> grey-clad
> moving hill.  Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's  
> eyes,
> but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the  
> like of him
> does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in  
> latter days are
> but memories of his girth and his majesty.  --"Of Herbs and Stewed  
> Rabbit"