Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/volume.22/text0060.txt

Text File | 1991-03-06 | 1.6 KB | 43 lines

Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Loren L. Hart)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Guido van Rossum) writes:
>Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Guido van Rossum)
>
>[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>>Yes, fork() is a cleaner method of creating new processes. Yes, it takes
>>a fairly complex calling sequence to get spawn() to have anything like
>>the functionality of fork()...exec(). But I think it'd be worthwhile to
>>let a little heresy in in exchange for making POSIX more palatable to
>>folks in poorer environments.
>
>I know of precedents even in OS'es that support fork(): Amoeba and
>Topaz support a variant of what you call spawn().  (Note that the
>spawn() functions found in Microsoft C for MS-DOS emulate either just
>exec() or fork()+exec()+wait(), which is much less powerful, but
>all that MS-DOS can support (last time I looked).)

The Ada POSIX Draft currently has some sort of spawn command, since
fork is not necessicarily safe with respect to Ada Tasks.  I don't rember
the specific routine, but it is likely to go through some change before
the Ada version of the standard is finalized.  I would hope that this
spawn capability will be merged back into the 1003.1 standard at some
point in the future.

------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Loren L. Hart
The Ada Ace Group, Inc.
PO Box 36195
San Jose, CA  95158
[e-mail]

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loren L. Hart            The Ada Ace Group, Inc
[e-mail]        P.O. Box 36195
                San Jose, CA  95158


Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 62