On 9/2/10 6:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
> accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes.
>
> The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is:
>
> wait [[-a] n]
>
> instead, which asynchronously checks to see if process 'n' has completed.
I think `kill -0 n' is an acceptable solution.
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/
