SC_FORK

LRM clause 5.5.7 SC_FORK and SC_JOIN

Although (back in year 2005) we agreed the wording describing SC_FORK and
SC_JOIN , the sentence "There shall be no other characters other than
white space separating SC_FORK, the function calls, the commas, and
SC_JOIN." remains somewhat ambiguous. The agreed intent was that an
implementation is required to support only naked calls to function
sc_spawn. In particular, it is not crystal clear whether the following is
legal:

sc_process_handle h1, h2;
SC_FORK
  h1 = sc_spawn(...),
  h2 = sc_spawn(...)
SC_JOIN

Is the expression h1 = sc_spawn(...) to be regarded as a function call
in this context? The intent was that an implementation is not required to
support this, but it works fine in the ref sim.

Comments?

Thanks,

John A

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.