LiveCode Forums.

I have build a standalone App that does not quit after I output something to stdout

It does quit if I do not write to stdout

Any ideas, might be a Windows setting i'm thinking. I did use:
As stated in the dictionary

I don't write for Windows, but is it possible you have to exit the shell (stdout) before closing the standalone?

The equivalent of

on Windows.

Right, standalones won't quit if there are any open processes, or any pending messages.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was a way to code killing all remaining processes. Boy I hate getting old and senile

I'm not sure about all processes but you can do them individually with "close process".

You know, I seem to think it was in one of the many many (did I say many?) articles I've read over the last few months, however, while I can't think of exactly which it was (I'll get back to you on it if I find it again ), I suppose it could have posed closing multiple processes through a repeat loop, one at a time, just to make sure they were all closed. Then it automatically closed the stack when the last process was killed off.

I still think I remember there was one statement that killed them all in one go, but it wasn't recommended. I'll start the trip down memory lane (HAH) tomorrow. Provided I remember...

Which method do you use to write to stdout?
And why is it of a nature that can hang and block the sender?

Anyway:
If you have a process id or process name then you could try "kill".
This is LC command that works on Mac/Win/linux (see dictionary).

Or on windows try to use directly (via LC's shell) "taskkill":
https://technet.microsoft.com/de-de/lib ... 91009.aspx

I still think I remember there was one statement that killed them all in one go, but it wasn't recommended

I have only seen this:

jacque wrote:

I still think I remember there was one statement that killed them all in one go, but it wasn't recommended

I have only seen this:

Code: Select all

repeat for each line x in the openProcesses
  close process x
end repeat 

Well, I did say it could have been a repeat statement, didn't I?

That does indeed look familiar, and could well be it, and it sure looks safe enough. I was unable to find where I was originally reading it again to this point, so I'd say run with that always remembering of course, that it does take a little time for each process to actually close if I recall correctly.

can you just write a little batch script that you launch separately and include that script in your standalone? That would allow your standalone to proceed with whatever while the batch script runs/quits on its own.