[erlang-questions] A possible problem with the canonical listener idiom
Thu Jan 1 22:45:16 CET 2009
On 1/1/09, John Haugeland <stonecypher@REDACTED> wrote:
> Setting inet options should implicitly set the owner process. (Note that I
> said should, not "does": I'm not saying this is correct, I'm saying this is
> what I expected.) My belief in that regard is reinforced by the fact that
> the code does work as expected.
I still contend that it doesn't work as expected, or more accurately
didn't work in your svn version 98. I posted a test program that shows
the problem, along with a patch for your code, to your blog:
Also, I don't believe inet:setopts sets the controlling process,
judging from the Erlang source code, but I'm sure someone will correct
me if I'm wrong.
More information about the erlang-questions