Re: 5.3-alpha: the `jobs' builtin prints foreground dead jobs with function substitutions

[Chet Ramey]

On 4/30/24 12:35 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>      Date:        Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:29:43 -0400
>      From:        Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
>      Message-ID:  <958687ce-7e36-42d1-a82e-6101fc777ca4@case.edu>
>
>    | That's an interpretation. I might buy it if the DESCRIPTION didn't say
>    |
>    | "When jobs reports the termination status of a job, the shell shall remove
>    | the job from the background jobs list ..."
>    |
>    | which implies that it's `jobs' doing the reporting.
>
> No, it implies nothing of the kind.   It says what happens when jobs
> reports the termination status, it doesn't say, or imply, that the
> thing that happens (removing the job) only happens when the jobs command
> is run, which would imply that it needs to be.

It's the reporting part we're talking about here, not the removing.

> But beyond that, ask yourself, what is a foreground job doing on the
> background jobs list?

It's a jobs list. Things hang around in there until the user gets notified,
whether before the next interactive shell prompt, as POSIX specifies, or
before the next command is executed in a non-interactive shell. But of
course, that's a dodge, nobody does it that way. Everyone reports on
foreground job termination before the next command in a list. The
question is whether you do it before word expansion or after.

But I think we're getting to agreement here.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature