On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:59:39 +0100
Chris Vine wrote:
> ... you could consider launching the new process in C code via the
> guile FFI so you can ensure that no non-async-signal-safe code is
> called at the wrong time; but presumably you would still have by some
> means to prevent the garbage colle
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:14:22 +0200
Mathieu Othacehe wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> > This works exactly as you would expect from its POSIX equivalents
> > and has the advantage that you can read from the pipe as the
> > sub-process is proceeding rather than just collect at the end.
>
> Thank you ! Fol
Hi Chris,
> This works exactly as you would expect from its POSIX equivalents and
> has the advantage that you can read from the pipe as the sub-process is
> proceeding rather than just collect at the end.
Thank you ! Following your suggestion, I ended-up with :
--8<---cut here-
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:58:34 +0200
Mathieu Othacehe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently used "open-pipe*" to launch a process but was unable to
> read from stderr. This subject was already discussed on this ml
> here :
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2015-04/msg3.html
>
> Racket
Hi,
I recently used "open-pipe*" to launch a process but was unable to read
from stderr. This subject was already discussed on this ml here :
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2015-04/msg3.html
Racket seems to have procedures to provide stdout/stdin/stderr ports for
a given sub
