On 4/9/24 10:46 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
If you want two processes to communicate (really three), you might want to build with the multiple coproc support and use the shell as the arbiter.If you've written a script for other people than just yourself, expecting all of them to build their own bash install with a non-default preprocessor directive is pretty unreasonable.
This all started because I wasn't comfortable with the amount of testing the multiple coprocs code had undergone. If we can get more people to test these features, there's a better chance of making it the default.
The part that I've been missing this whole time is that using exec with the fds provided by the coproc keyword is actually a complete solution for my use case, if I'm willing to close all the resultant fds myself in background processes where I don't want them to go. Which I am.
Good deal.
Whether the coproc fds should be automatically kept out of most kinds of subshells, like it is now; or out of more kinds than currently; is kind of beside the point to me now.
Sure, but it's the potential for deadlock that we're trying to reduce.
But, having a builtin to ensure the same behavior is applied to any arbitrary fd might be useful to people, especially if those fds get removed from process substitutions as well.
What does this mean? What kind of builtin? And what `same behavior'?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
