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

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/1/24 2:39 PM, Oğuz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2024, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> > comsubs). I can work around this case, but I'm still interested in what
> > people think the general rule should be.
>
> I don't think anyone would expect to run `jobs' and see anything but
> asynchronous and stopped jobs.

Sure. Then you wonder why POSIX bothered to include "and all jobs whose
status has changed and have not been reported by the shell" in the
standard.

--
``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/