Re: waiting for process substitutions

[Zachary Santer]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:19 AM Oğuz <oguzismailuysal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The benefit is they're separate from async jobs and don't get in your way. 
> `wait' waiting for the last procsub is acceptable, `wait' waiting for a 
> procsub that I forgot about and that won't be listed by `jobs' is not.

I can not think of a time when I called 'wait' from the command line
that wasn't just for testing something. Even using process
substitutions on the command line is a relative rarity for me. If
we're balancing behavior on the command line against behavior in a
script, I think I'd give priority to scripting, at least here.

Chet doesn't see much value in making process substitutions jobs,
which I guess is fine. Can we agree that if they were made jobs,
though, waiting for all of them would be acceptable? You could see
them listed and handle them however you need.

> Procsubs occupying one slot in the shell's internal list of job statuses is 
> acceptable, them filling up that list and causing data loss/oom errors is not.

Bash is evidently already tracking all the procsub pids in their own
list, which now is always cleared when you call 'wait' without
arguments.