Was "'wait -n' with and without id arguments"
On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 10:30 PM Grisha Levit wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 20:52 Zachary Santer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Item 8 is just odd and is on the verge of being a dealbreaker. Not to
>> go off on another tangent, but what on Earth?
>
>
> AFAICT
On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 20:52 Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> Item 8 is just odd and is on the verge of being a dealbreaker. Not to
> go off on another tangent, but what on Earth?
>
AFAICT it's the non-POSIX-mode Bash behavior that is unusual.
While all shells will have treat single quotes as literal h
On Sun, Oct 20, 2024, at 8:51 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> Item 8 is just odd and is on the verge of being a dealbreaker. Not to
> go off on another tangent, but what on Earth?
>
> Item 3 is also a weird thing to do
Neither of these is "odd" or "weird". They are consistent with
other shells and sp
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 6:14 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 9/29/24 12:55 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:06 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >>
> > I might argue that calling 'jobs' within a script being executed
> > normally shouldn't make background jobs that have already terminate
On 10/17/24 11:27 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
When an interactive shell notifies the user before printing a prompt that
a job is now Done - that job should be removed (from everywhere).
It all boils down to what POSIX says about this, and what shells do. I
think I did a survey of existing implementa
On Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 14:58 Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 10/1/24 3:54 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> > # declare -A x
> > # echo ${x@a}
> > A
> > # set -u
> > # echo ${x@a}
> > bash: x: unbound variable
> >
> > Obvious workaround would be to disable `set -u` temporarily or assign
> > a temporary array value b
