> SIGCHLD is not defined for plan 9, except in ape. that's what i
> would call ape-specific.
This is degenerating into politics (or religion, same thing) quite
unnecessarily.
In my opinion, Go is a "better" APE (I'm convinced that Rob agrees
with me :-). The way I see it and the reason I like G
On Sat Jul 27 18:41:08 EDT 2013, ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
> > SIGCHLD is not defined for plan 9, except in ape. that's what i
> > would call ape-specific.
>
> You're intentionally missing the point.
i don't think so. ape must solve the sigchld problem since that
is a posix interface, and ape's rais
> SIGCHLD is not defined for plan 9, except in ape. that's what i
> would call ape-specific.
You're intentionally missing the point.
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
> it's an ape-specific question because the go maintainers chose to route
> around the problem. his point was that mksh is not the only program
> that has run into SIGCHLD. his point had nothing to do with whether go
> uses ape, which is a question nobody has ever asked.
SIGCHLD is not defined f
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:23:03AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sat Jul 27 11:12:59 EDT 2013, ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
> > > go does not use ape.
> >
> > That is irrelevant to what he said.
>
> the question at hand was the emulation of SIGCLD,
> which on plan 9 is an ape-specific question.
>
i
On Sat Jul 27 11:12:59 EDT 2013, ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
> > go does not use ape.
>
> That is irrelevant to what he said.
the question at hand was the emulation of SIGCLD,
which on plan 9 is an ape-specific question.
go can't have it both ways. either it needs to have a
solution that doesn't rely
> go does not use ape.
That is irrelevant to what he said.
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
> Would it be interesting to know how the other mksh ports (I think
> Syllable and Win32) implemented SIGCHLD emulation? I also saw after
> some googling that some tests in Go had to be ignored due to SIGCHLD
> issues on Plan9, so I guess there are more use-cases than this one.
> Unfortunately I kn
