Interactive Background Processes

[Greg Woods]

In article <1280 at csuna.UUCP> I write:
>-Unfortunately, a Unix without job control, layers, or such
>-will not provide the system facilities [sic] required for
>-emacs to do the same.
>-						Greg Woods.
>
>One rule of of thumb, never rip someones head off, unless
>you are sure you are right.  (Because someone like myself,
>in defense of a person like Bob, might rip your head off.)

I don't understand where you are comming from.  I wasn't sniping him, I
tried to answer his question, AND complain about the general state of
affairs. 

>Bob is perfectly correct in this case, and does not need
>correcting.  If I understand you correctly, you are just
>plain wrong, if I do not, I would like a clarification on
>the statement you made.

Since I didn't want to go in to the requirements for implementing all of
these things, I tried to make a simple statement.  I didn't want to
consider things like homemade PTY or SXT drivers and such.  USUALLY a
system that has the "facilities" [system calls / drivers] for
implementation of such features will also have some user-level commands
for exploiting these facilities, ie. shl will be there if you have
sxt's, and systems with pty's [nice for emacs] will ususally have
job-control facilities built into the shell as well.  BTW: Emacs may
still not work with interactive processes on systems that have no PTY's
or Streams, or multiplexed I/O.

Again, remember I was making a general statement, and I wanted it to
apply to the generally available systems that the perpetrator of the
question, and readers of the reply, are likely to run across.

>Mike Stump, Cal State Univ, Northridge Comp Sci Department
>uucp: {sdcrdcf, ihnp4, hplabs, ttidca, psivax, csustan}!csun!csuna!aeusemrs


-- 
						Greg Woods.

UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{cpcc, ontmoh, ontmoh!cpcc, tmsoft!cpcc}!woods
VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h]		LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada