Thus it was written in the epistle of Steve Dirickson,
> > If I've understood it correctly, it makes the process active, but it won't
> > actually start doing anything until the parent process terminates.
>
> BTW, this obviously isn't the way it works; when a parent process
> terminates, its children are also terminated.

That seems reasonable to me.  I drew my conclusion from a single pass, and as
I've not had a lot of experience with this end of MPE, it wasn't, alas, as
obvious to me is it is to you.  It is not inconceivable to me that a child
process could be raised to live on its own after the death of its parent.
Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
I had a feeling once about Mathematics - that I saw it all. Depth beyond
depth was revealed to me - the Byss and Abyss. I saw - as one might see the
transit of Venus or even the Lord Mayor's Show - a quantity passing through
infinity and changing its sign from plus to minus. I saw exactly why it
happened and why the tergiversation was inevitable but it was after dinner
and I let it go.
                                -- Churchill, [Sir] Winston Spencer (1874-1965)
          ==========================================================
         Deep thought to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *