On 12/27/20 5:01 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
If you have the pid of an asynchronous command -- and the easiest way to get that pid is by referencing $! after it was started -- you can call `wait' with that pid to retrieve the status, even if it's already terminated.Would you care if waiting on such identifications for background processes will occasionally be forgotten? How many efforts would you invest to add potentially missing wait function calls?
Would you care if configuring bash to wait on identification of background processes will occasionally be forgotten?
Would you care if checking the status of foreground processes and doing different things based on success or failure will occasionally be forgotten?
Would you care if <insert important part of script> will occasionally be forgotten?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Writing programs in *any* programming language requires attention to detail and effectively conveying your need to the programming language. bash is no exception, even if people have a terrible habit of treating bash like it should be special or different merely because it uses subprocesses a lot, and is popular.
A stronger argument must be made for new features rather than merely "sometimes people are extremely forgetful, we need a new language feature that doesn't fit in well and doesn't behave consistently, so they can be forgetful about that instead".
-- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature