On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, EL CHAAR Rabih   SGAM/AI/SAM wrote:

> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Julien Narboux
> > Envoyé : mercredi 2 novembre 2005 12:22
> > À : Richard Jones
> > Cc : caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
> > Objet : Re: [Caml-list] The best way to circumvent the lack of
> > Thread.kill ?
> >
> > 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
>
> If i'm not mistaken, fork is not also implemented under windows.
>
> Rabih

It is -- only it's called CreateProcess (and has weird semantics)...
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA