On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:27 PM Muhammed Mahmood
wrote:
> I'm curious as to why you think that it's not worth it for this functionality
> to be in an option.
Fewer options to remember the better.
> Actually, upon closer inspection, the line of code you shared still seems a
> bit incomplete.
Y
Date:Thu, 30 Jan 2025 11:00:36 -0600
From:MacBeth
Message-ID:
| errwait() { while wait -n || return; do :; done; }
Yes, that would also be good (could have the -p added as well if desired).
kre
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 2:02 AM Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Thu, 30 Jan 2025 06:03:18 +0300
> From:=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?=
> Message-ID: m3wdtjk0dfztgmfoggt2du...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> I'd suggest putting it in a function, something like
>
> wait_for_error() {
>
Date:Thu, 30 Jan 2025 06:03:18 +0300
From:=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?=
Message-ID:
| `while wait -n; do :; done' already does that
Not quite, after that loop $? = 0 (always) so there's no way to
tell whether or not one of the commands failed, which I suspect
was the orig
On Wednesday, January 29, 2025, Muhammed Mahmood via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>
> Ideally, there should be a wait -e which waits for every child process but
> exits on the first non zero exit code received.
>
`while wait -n; do :; done' already does that
--
Oğuz
