On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:13 AM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > > On 8/7/24 2:47 PM, Zachary Santer wrote: > > > Now I understand that this is because the list of terminated child > > processes that 'wait -n' currently ignores is only used in the > > interactive shell. > > Do you mean when no arguments are supplied?
Yeah, trying to avoid repeating myself too much. > It's not. The difference is > when a job is marked as notified and eligible to be removed from the > jobs list. > > > If you want the behavior of 'wait -n' to be > > consistent between scripts and the interactive shell, then it should > > choose one terminated child process from the list of those that is > > maintained in the interactive shell, if it's nonempty, to report to > > the user and to clear from that list, any time it is called. > > That would make it different from wait without -n. And that's fine. Why would you consider that a problem?
