The new std.process is ready for review
Vladimir Panteleev
vladimir at thecybershadow.net
Tue Mar 12 08:24:19 PDT 2013
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 15:19:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:02:45 -0400, Vladimir Panteleev
> <vladimir at thecybershadow.net> wrote:
>> I was thinking that we could implement both approaches
>> (closing all FDs after forking, and setting FD_CLOEXEC where
>> appropriate), as an escape hatch: if later we suddenly find
>> out that one of them was a horrible idea, we can simply remove
>> it without much consequence.
>
> Since all the solutions we are talking about are implementation
> details, not specifically requested by the user, it should be
> easy to switch from one to the other.
What I'm worried about is what we can't predict: unexpected side
effects. Disabling one approach should have a less drastic impact
than replacing it with another.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list