Re: coprocess suggestions

[Chet Ramey]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> writes:
> 
>> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
>>> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
>>> instead of :
>>> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>>>
>>> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like:
>>>
>>> coproc simple-command [redirections]
>>> coproc NAME compound-command [redirections]
>> I agree.  I will make it clearer that NAME cannot be used if the
>> coproc command is a simple command, to avoid confusion with the
>> first word of the command.
> 
> Even then the grammar is ambiguous.  What looks like a NAME followed by
> a compound-command can also be interpreted as a simple-command where
> NAME is the first word of it.

The grammar will not interpret it that way.  The token following the
NAME after the `coproc' will be parsed as a reserved word if it meets
the criteria for a reserved word -- that is, this is a place where
reserved words will be recognized.

Chet

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer

Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/