Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which child processes...control those child processes?

Reply
Thread Tools

How do I: Main thread spawn child threads, which child processes...control those child processes?

 
 
Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2003

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Alan Balmer wrote:
> >
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > Discussions about the charter of
> > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.

> >
> > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
> > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.

>
> Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.


Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
read?
IMHO, it is the *slightly* lesser of two evils to leave the
follow-ups pointing to both groups. That's the default behavior,
and as such less objectionable to those who like to object about
things.

-Arthur
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
> > Alan Balmer wrote:
> > > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Discussions about the charter of
> > > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> > > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
> > >
> > > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
> > > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.

> >
> > Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.

>
> Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
> not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
> read?


In this case to c.u.p. The thread is OT on c.l.c, and not needed
there in the future. Other groups should be able to make their
own determinations. The thread is NOT about c.l.c topicality;
only the particular announcement message is. This particular
thread had degenerated into protocol for cutting off cross-posts.

--
Chuck F ((E-Mail Removed)) ((E-Mail Removed))
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan Balmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:44:12 GMT, CBFalconer <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, CBFalconer wrote:
>> > Alan Balmer wrote:
>> > > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Discussions about the charter of
>> > > > comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
>> > > > follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.
>> > >
>> > > No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will
>> > > even read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.
>> >
>> > Which, in turn, is why such a reply should set follow-ups.

>>
>> Huh? Follow-ups to where? To c.l.c, a group the offender may
>> not even read, or to c.u.p, a group the offender may not even
>> read?

>
>In this case to c.u.p. The thread is OT on c.l.c, and not needed
>there in the future. Other groups should be able to make their
>own determinations. The thread is NOT about c.l.c topicality;
>only the particular announcement message is. This particular
>thread had degenerated into protocol for cutting off cross-posts.


Ah. Your first post above seemed to be supporting "follow-up should be
set to comp.lang.c and not any other group." Much different. In
contrast to that statement, I'd say followups should be set to every
group addressed *except* c.l.c.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Schwartz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003

"Alan Balmer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:02:08 +0100, "Bjorn Reese"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> >Discussions about the charter of
> >comp.lang.c are topical on comp.lang.c and only there, so the
> >follow-up should be set to comp.lang.c and not any other group.


> No. There is no assurance that the offending cross-poster will even
> read the reply if it's posted only to c.l.c.


I believe you have misunderstood what Bjorn Reese was saying. He said
the followups should be "set" to comp.lang.c, not "sent" to comp.lang.c.

When you post that the OP is off-topic, you don't want the original
poster to see any replies to your pos. Most of them will be people
complaining about your warning and you'd rather the OP think your position
is the only position. (Assuming the OP doesn't read c.l.c.) That way, you
confine continuation to the thread only to c.l.c readers and contain the
damage.

DS


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Logging stdout/stderr/stdin of an spawn process (Open4::spawn) Edgardo Hames Ruby 1 05-06-2008 08:17 PM
Logging stdout/stderr/stdin of an spawn process (Open4::spawn) Ed Hames Ruby 0 04-16-2008 04:21 PM
spawn syntax + os.P_WAIT mode behavior + spawn stdout redirection Derek Basch Python 2 01-21-2005 05:37 AM



Advertisments