[erlang-questions] An answer: how does SASL know that a process died?
Fri Nov 1 11:12:04 CET 2013
ML> >I doubt removing it would...
RC> Well, I wasn't going to suggest removing it entirely, but changing
I want to toss it. It's ugly and useless. But I'm hasty.
I hoping someone would remember why the message-to-error-logger hack
was added in the first place. In the absense of someone who can
remember, I'll just make up some history: it came around the same time
as supervision trees were being invented. People had a hazy idea that
you needed to keep track of processes that went wrong, and the first
idea was to print a message whenever that happened. Soon after,
someone else came up with the idea of supervisors, but left the
error-logger hack in so as not to step on the inventor's toes.
More information about the erlang-questions