RE: gnotes+ editor strangeness

["Fox, Kevin M" <KMFox mail bhi-erc com>]

The tradition where:

"program" runs the program foreground and 
"program &" forks the program

"&" is used for daemonizing

the way gnp is setup, "&" is worthless, and you have to remember a special
switch to not fork it...

but as to your I find it more convenient, if you feel that way, I cant stop
you, its your program :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andy Kahn [SMTP:kahn@zk3.dec.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 18, 1999 1:57 PM
> To:	Fox, Kevin M
> Subject:	Re: gnotes+ editor strangeness
> 
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 12:20:26PM -0800, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > 
> > "gnp &" for forking and "gnp" for not...
> 
> ehh... in both cases, something is forking, else you wouldn't have a
> process in the first place.
> 
> 
> > It is not a big issue but it makes gnp a non standard app. (is there a
> > reason that it should break tradition?)
> 
> not sure what tradition you're referring to, but it's basically done
> this way because i personally find it more convenient (e.g., i don't
> have the need to run it from the script, so by doing this, i don't
> have to always add a '&').
> --andy
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.