forking in OS X (Jaguar)
- Gregory Seidman wrote:
> Benji Fisher sez:That's what I thought. So we have the same options (fork and
> } If I run vim in the background, with
> } % /Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -g &
> } then the Terminal is ready for new commands, and Vim comes into focus,
> } which is what I usually want. If I do not run it in the background,
> But you shouldn't need the &, it should Just Do It. This is the expected
> behavior withou the -f flag.
> } % /Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -g
> } then the terminal waits for Vim to finish. Is this different from not
> } forking? More to the point: is there a problem? For example, I have
> } not tried calling Vim from a mail program or anything that expects Vim
> } to finish before doing more work.
> This is exactly not forking. This is the expected behavior with the -f
don't fork) but we get them in a strange way (with or without & instead
of without or with -f). My question stands: is this a problem?
Since my attempt to get gvim, view, etc. by making (symbolic or
hard) links failed, perhaps we should go back to my original suggestion.
With appropriate aliases or shell-script wrappers, we should be able
to get the expected behavior by using or not using -f . That is, make
gvim a little executable shell script that processes the -f flag (and
appends & or not) and passes the rest of the arguments to MacOS/Vim .