testing codes in erl with running processes

[HP Wei]

>HP Wei writes:
> > I have an erl session, in which there is a process running.
> > 
> > I load a testing module which is unrelated to the running process;
> > then, 
> > I type fx(...), without specifying the module name: test:fx(...).
> > erl tells me so dutifully.
> > But after a few seconds, the running process also exits
> > with {badarg...} type of error.
> > 
> > Can the action of testing codes somehow
> > interfere with a process running in the background ??
>
>If a process is linked to the shell and the shell exits, then that
>process will receive an exit signal. An error in the shell causes the
>shell process to exit and restart:
>
>  1> self().
>  <0.25.0>
>  2> fx().
>  ** exited: {undef,[{shell_default,fx,[]},
>  3> self().
>  <0.40.0>
>
>If you don't want that behaviour, make sure your process isn't linked
>to the shell process, for instance by starting it via spawn() instead
>of spawn_link().

  hi,
    forget about my previous email.
    
    I just realized that in my process, I refer to an ets table.
    And an ets table is associated with the running shell.
    This should explain why that process dies.
    
    If this is the case, I probably have no way to avoid this from
    happening.  The easy way is to develop code in another erl ?
    
 HP