Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: C questions (again)
Message-ID: <18699@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 03:35:43 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.114348.10577@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1991Feb7.224940.27921@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 19

In article <1991Feb7.224940.27921@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:
>	I remember something mentioned about Execute() being asynchronous.
>I think it was in some message that favorably compared it with System()
>under 2.0. It is not. When your program calls Execute(), it goes to sleep
>until Execute() is finished executing :-). It would be nice if an asynchro-
>nous form were available. I guess the only way now is to prefix the command
>string with "Run", but Execute() will return the result code of Run instead
>of the result code of the program you ran. If System() under version 2.0 is
>anything like the System() on UNIX systems - then no dice here either.

	Execute is synchronous (unless you do Execute("run ...",...)).
System can be synchronous or asynchronous (with the SYS_ASYNCH tag).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
The compiler runs
Like a swift-flowing river
I wait in silence.  (From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)