On 5/10/22 12:03 PM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
>> If jobs and kill work, you should probably add wait to this description, or
>> add a separate paragraph to the wait rationale.
>
> If it works with "wait" in all shells (that we care about), then I
> agree it would make sense to add it.
Just decide whether or not it makes sense. If it makes sense, add it.
Shell behavior is only selectively relevant.
>> I'd be interested in your reasoning. The standard simply says that jobs
>> and kill (and wait should be added) work with job %X notation whether
>> or not job control is enabled.
>
> The normative text relating to creation of job numbers/IDs is all
> conditional on job control being enabled.
Where is that? It's not in the definition of Job ID, it's not in 2.9.3
Asynchronous Lists, it's not in the `jobs' description, it's not part of
the definition of Background Job or Foreground Job, it's not in any
of fg/bg/kill/wait. I feel like I'm missing something obvious here.
>> OK. I'm pretty sure everyone already does this for the jobs list. Not sure
>> whether you want it to include the known IDs list.
>
> I think kre intended it apply to the known IDs list as well, and I
> was agreeing with that.
So for the known IDs list, it's pretty much `wait' and `jobs', right?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
