|
|
|
good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
| PerlMonks |
Re: Unsafe signals are called "Unsafe" for a reason, you knowby jfroebe (Parson) |
| on Mar 19, 2004 at 13:13 UTC ( [id://338097]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors. Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.
Actually I do understand your point of view... and agree with you for the most part.
even if the process goes into lala land, a separate process will kill it, start a new process which will examine what was done, undo whatever was 'messed up', and continue with the task. The overall effect would be no worse than performing kill -SIGKILL (-9). However, if I just wrote a routine to restart the system call without any other failsafe in place, then that would be bad and irresponsible. For most tasks, the unsafe signals are undesirable.. on certain tasks, they are unavoidable and necessary. The fact that they are unsafe is a failure of the Perl engine... so we have to make do, for now, with what we have and build contingency plans for using the unsafe signals.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||