| To: | Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: more run, scheme code, and exit values questions |
| From: | glenn@mathcs.emory.edu (Glenn Barry) |
| Date: | Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:49:11 -0500 |
| Cc: | glenn@mathcs.emory.edu (Glenn Barry), scsh@martigny.ai.mit.edu |
| Organization: | Emory University, Dept of Math and CS |
| Reply-to: | glenn@mathcs.emory.edu (Glenn Barry) |
Bill> Ideally, the final form in a pipeline should be invoked in the Bill> parent scsh process rather than in a subprocess. aha! I had assumed it was like other shells and was invoked in the parent scsh process. That explains 2 other wierdisms: 1) an (exit <val>) call from scheme code started via the run epf does not cause the parent scsh process to exit (like expected). 2) changing a global var in scheme code via the run epf has the odd behavior of the var not being changed later in the program after the run epf is finished. Bill> Scsh does not behave this way, and this complicates script Bill> writing ... yup ... comments from scsh HQ? thx Bill, glenn |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: more run, scheme code, and exit values questions, Glenn Barry |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why not SCM as a base for scsh?, Olin Shivers |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: more run, scheme code, and exit values questions, Bill Sommerfeld |
| Next by Thread: | Re: more run, scheme code, and exit values questions, Glenn Barry |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |