doc: note that fork() and exec() are unrelated to Unix system calls, resolves #224

[Trott]

This is a conservative attempt to resolve #224.

[rlidwka]

Instead of the "unrelated" disclaimer it's probably better to explain what the difference is.

[Trott]

Instead of the "unrelated" disclaimer it's probably better to explain what the difference is.

Perhaps. I at least initially concluded that including the differences between them is a little like including the differences between JavaScript and Java in the documentation. Despite a similar name, there really is not much of a relationship. And many of the similarities are coincidental.

[Fishrock123]

Perhaps change "unrelated" to "not similar" or "dissimilar"?

[rlidwka]

Note: child_process.fork() works differently from the fork() system call in POSIX, it starts a new node.js process instead of cloning a current one.

Note: child_process.exec() works differently from the exec() system call in POSIX, it doesn't stop current process like an exec() does.

---

I don't remember what those system calls do, but something along those lines would be better.

[Trott]

Yes, that's an improvement. Thanks! I'll keep a watch here and over at #224 and try to pull together the best bits and pieces in the next few hours hopefully...

[Trott]

OK, I've updated the text based on feedback from @rlidwka, @guss77 and others. What do we think of this? I'm trying to provide more information than just saying they're different, but also trying to keep it succinct.

Unlike the exec() POSIX system call, child_process.exec() does not replace the existing process and uses a shell to execute the command.

Unlike the fork() POSIX system call, child_process.fork() does not clone the current process.

[guss77]

I would be happier if it would include slightly more details, but can live with this as it is.

[silverwind]

I wish such meta-information would be a bit visually distinct from actual behaviour documentation. You don't have to change unless you agree, but I'd like to see these two paragraphs italicized (wrap in *).

[rlidwka]

but I'd like to see these two paragraphs italicized (wrap in *).

+1

[Trott]

I've italicized it and also prefixed it with "Note:".

[silverwind]

Thanks, landed in 86dd244