Search Results

Well, yeah. My point was just that there was no point going through all that - forking and sharing memory - just to simulate threads when I already have threads...

What I was saying is that in this one specific case we're talking about, where one would implement shell threading by using forked processes and shared memory, you don't need to copy variable...

If it's shared memory you don't make copies. You write to the shared memory and all processes that share that memory see the change. (The same would be true if "subshells" meant to operate on the...

Well, we're talking about using shared memory to export this copy of the shell variables to fork()'ed shell processes - so as long as the memory is shared writable, and as long as access to it is...

But where would the output go instead?
[/QUOTE]

Same place it would go to normally. Whatever the shell sees as FD #1.

Obviously if you're using stdout as some kind of formatted value stream,...

Does that have to be done as part of the parallel loop? That sounds like something you might want to do in general, inside or outside a loop.
[/QUOTE]

I'd considered that: the multiplexing/TTY...

Naturally. I'm not sure it's the shell's job to fix this, though.
[/QUOTE]

In the design I've suggested here, the shell doesn't take responsibility for fixing that. Rather, it merely provides a...

Yeah, I try web searching for "Javascript shell" and I get a bunch of in-browser debugging tools.



The relevant point of a destructor is that when one of those things happens - reference count...

Admittedly my experience in Korn Shell is rather limited. I don't know everything it's capable of. Compound variables are a new one on me. I had been using mksh for most of my Korn shell...

Dropping the file handle discussion - I'll read and carefully consider what you had to say on the subject. I do recognize this as an important problem: as I think about these things that I would...

Time to move on perhaps? The whole concept of storing "objects" in shell variables is a bit outside of the usual expectations for a Unix shell, so it's bound to be a contentious idea - I don't think...

One can take this argument to the extreme: say anything that's not part of one of the "standard" commonly-used shells is not a feature of a "shell language". If it wasn't invented at least 15 years...

You say I may have a lot to learn - I acknowledge the possibility. If I did not have the conviction to test my ideas like this, I would miss an opportunity to find out where my knowledge is lacking....

I don't know if this is a new Kindle/old Kindle thing but my understanding was that email was the only way... Don't know, really.

As for email - you have to whitelist sender addresses, so at the...

Well, I guess I can understand where you're coming from. Thanks for taking the time to provide me with an answer. I guess I'll just see where things go in the thread from here.

So there's this discussion I started (though I guess it's pretty much just myself and one other guy) in the "What's your most useful shell?"...

My wife wanted one so we got one. Personally I'm not entirely happy with the lack of control that comes with the platform - being able to read ePub content would have been nice, for instance,...

Hi - little introductory post for this thread:

The discussion started in the "What's your most useful shell?" poll thread and I think the discussion's gone on long enough that I don't want new...

Hey, I was kind of expecting a mod to move the discussion - in any case I think further discussion along these lines should take place in a new thread. It'll be easy to find.

Corona: Obviously we...

(regarding "cmd <&$fd")



It redirects from an open file descriptor. It's conceptually the same operation whether $fd is a numeric file descriptor or some "special file descriptor object".
...

I don't limit my answer to that question to the shells that have already been written. Any programmer has the ability to write a new shell, and thus at least the potential to effect some change to...

My point is that adding scoped lifetime management to file descriptors in a shell wouldn't fall nearly as far outside the current model as you suggest.



So what's the problem? I don't see how...

Wrong. The other time it knows it's done with a file descriptor is when that file descriptor is closed.

So why should "exec $fd<&-" be the only way to tell the shell it's time to close a file...

The same is true of file descriptors in C - but when you call open() to open a file there's no chance of accidentally closing a file you had open - the newly-opened file is assigned to a previously...

It's not too strange if you think about how open file handles interact with fork/exec... Basically when you fork a process, the new process normally inherits all the file descriptors of the first...