<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 5, 2008 10:49 AM, tim Rowledge <<a href="mailto:tim@rowledge.org">tim@rowledge.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>On 4-Feb-08, at 1:04 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:<br>><br>> What do people think about this?<br></div>I'm not too terribly keen on the idea of a process I fork getting set<br>to a lower priority than that that I requested. Then again, I don't<br>
all that often feel the need to fork processes anyway so perhaps I'm<br>not really entitled to a vote.<br><br>I think I'd categorise this example as a bug, plain and simple. Don't<br>do that. It's not a nice idiom at all.<br>
<br>To ameliorate the situation, we could *not* return the process from<br>the #fork method - thus making it pointless to write foo:= [blah]<br>fork. I'm sure that would upset some people that are to attached to<br>pretending to be in unix-land.</blockquote>
<div><br><br>It would upset me. All my code would break and I might cry.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>I'd like to hope that something like<br>
self critical:[foo:= [blah] fork]<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote></div><br><br>I've never heard of a #critical: method outside the Semaphore class. I'm assuming that self is a Semaphore? In that case, the forked/child process is not constrained by the critical: block and will escape to begin its loop with no guarantee that foo has been assigned.<br>
<br>Gulik.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg</a><br><a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a>