From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A5ED45F for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:31:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx-a.polytechnique.fr (mx-a.polytechnique.fr [129.104.30.14]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA2BVgBV000713 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:31:42 +0100 Received: from argos.lix.polytechnique.fr (argos.lix.polytechnique.fr [129.104.11.2]) by mx-a.polytechnique.fr (tbp 5.3.1/2.0.6) with ESMTP id jA2BVen9023434; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:31:40 +0100 Received: from [129.104.11.153] (pouilly.polytechnique.fr [129.104.11.153]) by argos.lix.polytechnique.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0945D4BA14; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:31:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4368A16B.4050703@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:22:19 +0100 From: Julien Narboux User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The best way to circumvent the lack of Thread.kill ? References: <43688C4C.2080606@inria.fr> <20051102105419.GB5067@furbychan.cocan.org> In-Reply-To: <20051102105419.GB5067@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4368A39E.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 theorem:01 theorem:01 thread:02 thread:02 native:02 graphical:02 caml:02 implemented:02 prover:02 prover:02 complex:04 structure:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Richard Jones wrote: >On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:12AM +0100, Julien Narboux wrote: > > >>My problem is that I don't want to pollute my target thread with checks >>for a variable. >> >>Indeed, I am writing a graphical user interface for an automated theorem >>prover. >> >> > >How about forking off the theorem prover as a separate process? You >can communicate the result back to the main program using either a >status code or a pipe (depending on how complex the result structure >is). The interrupt button just kills the forked process. > >Rich. > > > Yes, but the problem is that under the native windows port (see http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual035.html) : "kill, pause not implemented (no inter-process signals in Windows)" Julien Narboux