> The function g() here is just a symbolic stuff, standing for the
> remaining control flows.

> Suppose we want to implement a function, split(), which is to create two
> identical processes on invocation. We may use fork() inside split(). But
> from the user's perspective, he just calls split(). As we write the
> split() function, we cannot assume (actually we are unable to know) what
> is g().

> 2012/9/7 Rich Neswold <rich.nesw...@gmail.com>

>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Xiao Jia <stfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Of course in your example the control flow is cloned as you also loop
>> in the
>> > spawn fun.
>> > But what I want is a more general case. Take the following C code as an
>> > example.

>> > f();
>> > fork();
>> > g();

>> > Here the return value of fork() is ignored, so the next steps of both
>> the
>> > parent and the child
>> > process are the same, which is to execute g(). Can I achieve this in
>> Erlang?

>> How about:

>> f(),
>> spawn(g),
>> g().

>> --
>> Rich