On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:05:29PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:51:36AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > > The drawback is that we will have a separate proces for each action, but > > > maybe that is ok? > > > > As long as the actions don't try communicating back to the caller, > > this could be fine. Communicating unfortunately includes "abort". > > True! We need to be able to do the abort in a good way.
The Subshell could touch an abort file which is then evaluated by the calling shell, but that's ugly and I think it should be avoided. > I created something that you can use when creating the patch. I think > it is general enough. Quite general, but I do not see too much reasons to go for this eval-IFSesque construct when it is feasible to have a list of variables. Do you insist on this way, or can we please have a list of simple assignments? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
