2023年2月12日(日) 0:42 Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au>: > Why would you want to ever say "builtin jobs" though? > The jobs command has to be buikt in to work.
`jobs' can be overwritten by a shell function. For example, when a user wants to modify the behavior of `jobs' for interactive uses, a typical solution is to override `jobs' with a shell function and call `builtin jobs' in the overriding function. I guessed you have asked this because `jobs' would be specified as a special built-in utility [XCU 2.14], which cannot be hidden by a shell-function name, but it doesn't seem to be the case actually; `jobs' doesn't seem to be specified to be a special built-in utility. Anyway, `jobs' can be hidden by a shell function at least in Bash. I naively think that it is a valid request that `builtin jobs' would behave in the same way as `jobs' in this context. POSIX also states that the results are unspecified when the command name matches `builtin' according to [XCU 2.9.1 / Command Search and Execution / rule 1b]. -- Koichi
