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

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/2/24 12:23 PM, Oğuz wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:10 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> > There's no real difference between the two statements; there is a
> > clarification for consistency with the language in the new "Job
> > Control" section in Issue 8.
>
> Yeah it doesn't clarify anything and the new job control section is
> pointlessly detailed. Issue 7 describes how every shell does job
> status notifications much better in the description for `set -m':

It doesn't. In an interactive shell, while executing a command list,
every shell prints a notification if a foreground job is killed by a
signal before executing the next comamnd in the list. Nobody waits
until issuing the next prompt. The standard doesn't cover that, maybe
intentionally.

--
``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