[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:52:36 +0200 (IST) |
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > This will work, but I think it would be a good idea to have this
> > indirect invocation be a configure-time option. Running an extra
> > program wastes system resources, which on some systems might be
> > significant.
>
> What about exec* (resp. spawn*)? I thought that these functions
> simply overlay the parent process
Not on DOS/Windows: spawn* don't overlay the current process (they aren't
supposed to, by design), and exec* are implemented on several systems as
a call to spawn* that doesn't return to the caller.
Am I wrong in assuming that this feature is not normally required by an
average user (on all systems, not only on DOS/Windows)? If I'm not
wrong, why not make it an optional behavior? I think TeX/Web2c doesn't
support such multi-version installations, to take one example.
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, (continued)
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Andy Dougherty, 2000/10/26
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/27
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Andy Dougherty, 2000/10/27
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/28
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Ted Harding, 2000/10/29
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Eli Zaretskii, 2000/10/30
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/31
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Eli Zaretskii, 2000/10/31
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/10/31
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [Groff] new groff directory structure, Ralph Corderoy, 2000/10/31