Jeff Chua wrote:
>
> Chet,
>
> The man page mentioned that 'set -m' should print 'a line containing
> their status upon their completion' ... which should imply 'set +m'
> should NOT print the status.
I'm confused about the circumstances you used to trigger this behavior,
since the code fragment you modified is never executed by an interactive
shell, and non-interactive shells don't have job control enabled by
default. Are you saying you ran a script in which you enabled job
control, ran a job, turned job control off, then killed the job?
Bash and historical versions of sh report the status of jobs in a script
that exit as the result of being killed by a signal. I'm not going to
change that.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
