On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > I am concerned then that this function will lie. Or at least, the > precise specification for it escapes me. This will return false for a > process that was threaded, but isn't anymore, which seems ok, but > fuzzy in the case where only a spawned thread and not the main thread > is left. The case where the only remaining thread is not the main > thread is something that may need to be handled either as threaded or > not threaded. I'm a little worried that an abstraction like this will > lead to mistakes if the definition isn't clear.
Huh. Okay. It was meant as a quick easy abstraction, but I don't feel strongly enough to stuff it down anyone's throat. Withdrawn. Philip
