From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7659 invoked from network); 24 Jun 1997 16:20:39 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Jun 1997 16:20:39 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA25280; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:54:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Zefram Message-Id: <18839.199706241558@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: process watching? To: hzoli@VNET.IBM.COM (Zoltan T. Hidvegi) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:58:37 +0100 (BST) Cc: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk, jf@ugcs.caltech.edu, zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <9706232222.AA20208@belgium.fishkill.ibm.com> from "Zoltan T. Hidvegi" at Jun 23, 97 06:22:18 pm X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]9533.32 X-Phase: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (81% of Full) X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers X-Personality: INTJ X-This-is-not-HTML: Content-Type: text Resent-Message-ID: <"KI15W1.0.xA6.3t-hp"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3303 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Zoltan T. Hidvegi wrote: >Why? What's wrong with the user code implementation? kill -0 pid can be >used to test for the presence of the process. It can be put either to >precmd or to periodic (periodic is the function name which is executed in >every $PERIOD seconds, just before a prompt). There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it that way. It will work, and be tolerably efficient. It's fine for a one-off. However, there is the problem that there can only be one periodic function, so if the user wants to do two periodic things, they must both have the same period and both be invoked in the periodic function. For something that is to be used regularly, it would be nice to extend sched to do periodic execution of this nature, or otherwise allow multiple independent periodic functions. -zefram