Andreas Schwab wrote: > Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> writes: > >> Pierre Gaston wrote: >>> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses. >>> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that >>> instead of : >>> coproc [NAME] command [redirections] >>> >>> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like: >>> >>> coproc simple-command [redirections] >>> coproc NAME compound-command [redirections] >> I agree. I will make it clearer that NAME cannot be used if the >> coproc command is a simple command, to avoid confusion with the >> first word of the command. > > Even then the grammar is ambiguous. What looks like a NAME followed by > a compound-command can also be interpreted as a simple-command where > NAME is the first word of it.
The grammar will not interpret it that way. The token following the NAME after the `coproc' will be parsed as a reserved word if it meets the criteria for a reserved word -- that is, this is a place where reserved words will be recognized. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
