Archives of the Caml mailing list > Message from Julien Narboux

Browse thread

The best way to circumvent the lack of Thread.kill ?

Julien Narboux
- Richard Jones
  - Julien Narboux
    - Jacques Garrigue
      - Julien Narboux
- Gerd Stolpmann
  - Gerd Stolpmann
  - Julien Narboux
    - Gerd Stolpmann
- David Teller
  - Alessandro Baretta
    - David Teller
      - Alessandro Baretta
        
        David Teller
        
        Jonathan Bryant
        
        Grégory_Guyomarc'h
        
        Richard Jones
        
        Jonathan Bryant

Date:	2005-11-02 (11:31)
From:	Julien Narboux <Julien.Narboux@i...>
Subject:	Re: [Caml-list] The best way to circumvent the lack of Thread.kill ?

Richard Jones wrote:

>On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:12AM +0100, Julien Narboux wrote:
>  
>
>>My problem is that I don't want to pollute my target thread with checks 
>>for a variable.
>>
>>Indeed, I am writing a graphical user interface for an automated theorem 
>>prover.
>>    
>>
>
>How about forking off the theorem prover as a separate process?  You
>can communicate the result back to the main program using either a
>status code or a pipe (depending on how complex the result structure
>is).  The interrupt button just kills the forked process.
>
>Rich.
>
>  
>
Yes, but the problem is that under the native windows port (see 
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual035.html) :

"kill, pause not implemented (no inter-process signals in Windows)"


Julien Narboux