From: Jason Mayer <slamboy@...>
Date: 2006-11-20T12:13:52+09:00
Subject: Re: backticks asynchronous?

------=_Part_35332_9804826.1163992430367
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Sorry, reading this email reminded me of my project.  Say I wanted to do a
bunch of pings using backticks (you may have asked my stupid n00b questin
about ``).  If I wanted to do a bunch of pings, which would take some small
amount of time, would it be better(faster) to start new threads before doing
the `ping whatever`, or is there a better/different way?

On 11/19/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
>
> Giles Bowkett wrote:
>
> > sorry, dumb question possibly, I just want to make sure. if I call
> > some Unix command using backticks, that invokes the command, launches
> > a new process, and waits until that process terminates before resuming
> > program execution, right? especially if I do this:
> >
> > shell_output = `some process`
> >
> > which should capture the output of the process. right? it isn't possible
> > to say
> >
> > shell_output = `some process`
> >
> > and accidentally see execution fork, is it?
>
> That depends on what you put between the back-ticks.
>
> This:
>
> `command > /dev/null &`
>
> will almost certainly fork. There are any number of forking contingencies,
> depending on what you try to run, and how.
>
> --
> Paul Lutus
> http://www.arachnoid.com
>
>

------=_Part_35332_9804826.1163992430367--