Re: FVWM: Re: Exec vs. exec

From: Randy J. Ray <rjray_at_uswest.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:29:24 -0600

>
> I'm somewhat late into this thread, but I think that the two primitives
> should be:
>
> Shell makes a subshell
>
> Exec forks a subshell with an implicit 'exec', or even just fork
> a process with no shell at all. The fvwm command should
> mirror the behavior of the shell command by that name,
> because that's what people will expect it to do.
>
> 3 is overkill, but one is not enough.
>

This would be disastrous, as it would break existing rc files that use Exec
expecting it to spawn a shell as it has done thus far. *If* a new keyword is
added, it has to reference the new functionality, not break the existing
functionality.

Randy

--
===============================================================================
Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS         Phone: (303)595-2869
                Denver, CO                                     rjray_at_uswest.com
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept." --Calvin
===============================================================================
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.

Received on Thu Apr 17 1997 - 12:30:05 BST