[racket] adding other objects to custodian

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Mon Jul 5 00:24:50 EDT 2010

On Jul  4, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> However, you can't ever be guaranteed to kill all the subprocesses,
> regardless of process groups.  The subprocess could be setuid, and
> thus unkillable by the original Racket process.
> From a best effort perspective, I think sending the signal to the
> process group is more custodian-like.

+1.  I think that it's fine if shutting down a custodian is equivalent
to ctrl+\-ing a process from a shell.  It's true that in both cases
there can still be leftover processes, but that's expected anyway if
it's what you get from a shell.

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.