Re^4: Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number?

in reply to Re^3: Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number?
in thread Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number?

There's no difference between receiving an alarm that was sent via alarm or via kill. What makes you think that the latter can trigger signals when the former can't?

What's obfuscated about sending a signal with kill, whose very purpose is to send signals?

Comment on Re^4: Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number? by Marshall (Canon) on Sep 13, 2009 at 06:34 UTC
There's no difference between receiving an alarm that was sent via alarm or via kill. What makes you think that the latter can trigger signals when the former can't? I didn't say that there was a difference. I explained very clearly how to use the alarm signal in a normal application. A signal is a "message" from the OS. What's obfuscated about sending a signal with kill, whose very purpose is to send signals? What is obfuscated is this "poetry" idea and using language constructs in "unnatural ways". I have no problem with strange code as an art form.	[reply]
Re^6: Signals in Strawberry Perl: Name or number? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 13, 2009 at 07:46 UTC
I didn't say that there was a difference. It looks like I misunderstood you. there is no way to "safely" continue executing a process after an ALRM signal because many OS functions are not [...] even re-startable by any means. What gives you that idea? What is obfuscated is this "poetry" idea Again, how is `kill ALRM, $$` obfuscation/poetry?	[reply] [d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom