Re: 'wait -n' with and without id arguments

[Chet Ramey]

On 8/7/24 2:47 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:06 AM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> > On 7/31/24 11:40 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> > > I think I was missing more than that. Was the original 'wait -n'
> > > discussion from January specific to its use within the interactive
> > > shell?
> >
> > No, it was due to processes exiting due to signals. But you could have
> > looked that up yourself.
>
> That was a big discussion, and I wasn't a part of it. Let's not miss
> my point, though. The "next" in the description of 'wait -n' in the
> manual currently means different things depending on if you're in a
> script or in the interactive shell, at least given the testing of
> bash-5.3-alpha that I performed. In a script, 'wait -n' without id
> arguments doesn't appear to skip child processes that have already
> terminated. This is good. In the interactive shell, it does.

That stuff changed last month, after bash-5.3-alpha was released. Before
that change, neither interactive nor non-interactive shells checked the
list of saved statuses. The difference was when the user was notified of
a process's exit status and when a job was removed from the jobs list.

--
``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