Shouldn't System.Process.runInteractiveCommand close inherited descriptors above 2?

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

Tomasz Zielonka wrote:

> Additionaly, in a complex
> application you may want a particular descriptor to be passed through
> one exec(), and not passed through another.

Well, you have all the building blocks you need to write a function that 
will do just that.  It shouldn't take more than a few lines of code.

> So my initial question changes to: would it be useful to have an
> extended version of runInteractiveProcess with options for using
> non-standard behaviour and things like setsid(2)? Did anyone other
> than us wanted such functionality?

If you want to manipulate sessions and stuff like that, you're deep in 
application-specific territory, not to mention POSIX specificity.  The 
libraries already provide the basic pieces that you need; I don't see 
much value in cooking some particular combination of them into a 
"blessed" library function.

	<b