Re: waiting for process substitutions

[Oğuz]

On Saturday, July 13, 2024, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
>
> If two jobs happen to finish simultaneously, the next call to wait -n
> should reap one of them, and then the call after that should reap
> the other.  That's how everyone wants it to work, as far as I've seen.
>
> *Nobody* wants it to skip the job that happened to finish at the exact
> same time as the first one, and then wait for a third job.  If that
> happens in the loop above, you'll have only 4 jobs running instead of 5
> from that point onward.
>
>
It feels like deja vu all over again. Didn't we already discuss this and
agree that `wait -n' should wait jobs one by one without skipping any? Did
it not make it to 5.3?


-- 
Oğuz