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

[Oğuz]

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':

Immediately before the shell issues a prompt after completion of the
background job, a message reporting the exit status of the background
job shall be written to standard error. If a foreground job stops, the
shell shall write a message to standard error to that effect,
formatted as described by the jobs utility. In addition, if a job
changes status other than exiting (for example, if it stops for input
or output or is stopped by a SIGSTOP signal), the shell shall write a
similar message immediately prior to writing the next prompt.

This makes sense, the behavior demonstrated in OP doesn't.

On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:17 PM G. Branden Robinson
<g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your choice of term puzzles me.  I'd call it a "revision".

Thanks for correcting and apologies for any confusion. This isn't my
native language and I don't speak it outside the internet.