[racket] adding other objects to custodian

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 5 15:13:40 EDT 2010

At Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:22:00 -0400, Philippe Meunier wrote:
> >I'm not sure I understand this suggestion, either. Do you mean that
> >Racket should create a process group for each subprocess that it
> >launches? Wouldn't that interfere with the role of process groups for
> >job control in a shell?
> Sam's idea (I believe) is that in practice 99% of programs are "well
> behaved" and don't create new process groups or new sessions, in which
> case all the processes are in one (new) group (created for that
> purpose) and are easy to kill at once.  That sounds reasonable to me.

I still think that would cause problems with job control shell if it
were the default mode in Racket. That is, if Racket starts creating
process groups, then it stops being "well behaved" itself.

As a mode specifically selected by a programmer (Robby's suggestion),
it seems ok.

Posted on the users mailing list.