Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!sri-spam!parcvax!hplabs!pyramid!decwrl!wecker@cookie.dec.com
From: wecker@cookie.dec.com (DAVE  TANSTAAFL  WECKER)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: creating sub process (from Matt Dillon)
Message-ID: <5082@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Sun, 31-Aug-86 20:42:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5082
Posted: Sun Aug 31 20:42:30 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Sep-86 18:57:45 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26

> ...  
> 	Along the same lines, I think it would be a good idea to include in
> the DOS library a function similar to the Execute() call, but:
>  
> 	(a) you can give it Output AND Input file handles
> 	(b) that has NOTHING to do with a CLI....
> 	(c) That gives the return value from the executed command.
>  
> ...
> 					-Matt


Here Here!! I spent an equivalent amount of time trying to write a MAKE for
my system (too cheap to buy it from Manx :-) and found that Execute() was
pretty useless, since you couldn't get back an exit status. What I wound up
doing was an fexecv() (which does seem to work on both C and "standard"
commands) and then doing a wait() (notice lower case) to get the returned
status. Without this, there was no way for the "make" to recognize that a
command had failed and merrily go on and link/compile dependant modules.

I really hate having to parse my own command lines (maybe Matt's shell will
take care of that for me (when I finally get a copy) ;-). For now it's
good enough but the function described above would be REAL useful.


dave	decwrl!cookie.dec.com!wecker