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

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/2/24 1:44 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:

> > I think we're talking about two different categories of notifications 
> > though; the one sent when a foreground job is killed is useful when the 
> > shell is non-interactive too, the other not so much. I don't know why the 
> > standard doesn't cover it, but if you plan to follow zsh in this I don't 
> > think that's a good idea. It's ugly and confusing.

I've been thinking about this. Is it better to have something like

Killed: 9                  ( kill -s KILL 0 )
Killed: 9                  ( kill -s KILL 0 )
Killed: 9                  ( kill -s KILL 0 )
Killed: 9                  ( kill -s KILL 0 )

or

Killed: 9
Killed: 9
Killed: 9
Killed: 9

Which is more confusing?

--
``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