He already got rid of the field. We'll solve the
subprocess-from-interpreter-loop problem when we come to it, years
from now when Subversion has its own United Nations seat.
-K
Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
>
> > The boolean is anticipatory.
> > *When* svn becomes a shell :), certain commands will need to run
> > in the parent process (e.g. "exit" and "cd"), while nearly all
> > others will run in a subprocess (so they can exit with failure
> > without killing the main loop).
>
> I'd like to stomp on this one before it happens.
>
> There exist systems where "fork" doesn't exist -- e.g., it's gruesomly
> expensive and inconvenient to implement. Is the only for creating a
> subprocess so that you can write "exit(1)" instead of "return 1"? If so,
> please consider doing without subprocesses.
>
> --
> Brane �ibej
> home: <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
> work: <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si> http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
> ACM: <brane_at_acm.org> http://www.acm.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006