is there plans to add / handle multiple redirection-procs in one cmd in the jobs table
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024, 23:15 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > On 9/22/24 1:48 PM, Zachary Santer wrote: > > If you're not going to make 'wait -n' without id > > arguments pull something from the bgp list, then the 'set -o posix' > > notification behavior ought to be made the default behavior, yeah. > > I think keeping posix mode behavior is fine. > > >> Like `set -b'? > > > > Yeah, that really needs to be mentioned explicitly. > > The job control section already mentions notify, and the latest (heavily > edited) versions mention that jobs are removed from the jobs table when > the user is notified. > > > > If the default > > notification behavior stays as is, it should also mention that 'wait > > -n' without id arguments in the interactive shell, with 'set -m' > > enabled, requires that 'set -o posix' be enabled as well, for reliable > > I could see putting all that in the BUGS section. > > > > It's not a bug. I mean, I know there's some stuff in the BUGS section > that's not a bug that's been there for a while, but this isn't a bug. > It's just how notify works. > > > I know I never looked at it before I got burnt the first time. > > Apparently. > > > > >>> B) Solve 'wait -n' inconsistency by allowing it to act on the list of > >>> saved pids and statuses of jobs whose termination has already been > >>> notified to the user: > >>> - POSIX doesn't agree with the existence of that list > >> > >> POSIX says everything should disappear when you get notified or the > >> subject of `wait', so there's that (bash just does it on `wait'). Those > >> semantics have defenders just as ardent as you are. > > > > Maybe those defenders can elucidate what purpose that behavior would > serve. > > kre's on the list, maybe he'll speak up. I'm not going to speak for him. > He's written about this before. > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2024-08/msg00124.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2024-08/msg00179.html > > > At the end of the day, B) is by far the simpler solution, and wouldn't > > leave a bunch of configurations where 'wait -n' doesn't really work > > quite right in the interactive shell. > > It will work that way in posix mode for now. > > -- > ``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/ >
