[racket] adding other objects to custodian

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 5 09:13:46 EDT 2010

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:08:33 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> From a best effort perspective, I think sending the signal to the
>> process group is more custodian-like.
> 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?

I don't understand all of the issues here, but could one use the value
of the parameter when creating a custodian to mean "create a process
group for all processes created under the auspicies of this custodian
so that I can 'try harder' to clean them all up when the custodian is
shut down"?


Posted on the users mailing list.