On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:49:29PM +0100, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > On, 10-11-2003, at 16:41, David Roundy wrote: > > I was wondering why System.Posix.Signals is as it is, and whether it could > > be rewritten to use exceptions, which seems like the obvious way to handle > > signals. > > I don't understand. How to handle a signal using exceptions such that > the signal doesn't abort the execution up to the nearest established > handler?
That's precisely what it would do (which seems better than simply aborting execution...). If you don't want that behavior, you would forkIO a thread to receive the exceptions. -- David Roundy http://www.abridgegame.org _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe