Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001122152436.02106e20@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:25:29 -0500 To: DJ Delorie From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: newbie: Out of order execution in script Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <200011222018.PAA32341@envy.delorie.com> References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001122150913 DOT 020f6e18 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001122150913 DOT 020f6e18 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:18 PM 11/22/2000, DJ Delorie wrote: > > I guess I'm confused as to why one should expect things exec'd to run in > > a certain sequence. Isn't that the point of execing? If you're going to > >You're thinking of fork() (or perhaps spawn()). What exec() does is >replace the current process with a new one, which obviously must be >done in the right sequence ;) Yikes! Gotta read the email more carefully!;-) Larry -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com