Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:10:26 -0400 From: Taylor Venable <[email protected]>
Oh, I suppose this is probably entirely natural: (I assume) just because I had given the program input but it had already closed its input stream before scheme could write it. I don't know why I was thinking yesterday that this was a problem per se; I guess the real question is whether there is a way to suppress SIGPIPE so it doesn't interrupt execution by raising an error (if that's what's going on here). There is some code in imail/imail-util.scm to handle broken pipe conditions. However, if you want to silently ignore errors during writes, and let the writes proceed, I'm not sure there's a straightforward way of doing that short of implementing a new port type that handles broken pipe conditions during writes by silently dropping them and pretending to succeed. _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
