On 2/24/25 5:00 PM, Guinevere Larsen wrote:
>> If there was no argument passing here then I'd say you should be using
>> spawn_wait_for_attach.  But that doesn't support argument passing...
>>
>> ... however, if you read that proc (and its helper proc) you'll see some
>> comments that suggest using eval/exec like you do are not the right
>> choice.
>>
>> So maybe we should either extend (somehow) spawn_wait_for_attach to
>> allow argument passing, or write something like spawn_wait_for_attach
>> that handles arguments?
>
> If I found the correct documentation page, I think it shouldn't be 
> hard to extend spawn_wait_for_attach to handle arguments. And using 
> optional arguments, it should be a  very minor patch, so I'll see what 
> I can cook up.
>
> Thanks for the pointer, this definitely sounds like a better solution.

Actually, scratch that, we don't *need* to extend spawn_wait_for_attach. 
We can just give it a list with one element: "$::binfile $megs". So I'll 
definitely go this route.

I can add a convenience function to handle this anyway, if you'd prefer, 
though

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers