#fork and deterministic resumption of the resulting process
tim Rowledge
tim at rowledge.org
Mon Feb 4 21:49:37 UTC 2008
On 4-Feb-08, at 1:04 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> What do people think about this?
I'm not too terribly keen on the idea of a process I fork getting set
to a lower priority than that that I requested. Then again, I don't
all that often feel the need to fork processes anyway so perhaps I'm
not really entitled to a vote.
I think I'd categorise this example as a bug, plain and simple. Don't
do that. It's not a nice idiom at all.
To ameliorate the situation, we could *not* return the process from
the #fork method - thus making it pointless to write foo:= [blah]
fork. I'm sure that would upset some people that are to attached to
pretending to be in unix-land.
I'd like to hope that something like
self critical:[foo:= [blah] fork]
might be acceptable as a replacement idiom. There are times when
people simply have to accept that the simple looking way to do
something is just plain wrong.
tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
He who hesitates is probably right.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|