On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:10 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > There's no real difference between the two statements; there is a > clarification for consistency with the language in the new "Job > Control" section in Issue 8.
Yeah it doesn't clarify anything and the new job control section is pointlessly detailed. Issue 7 describes how every shell does job status notifications much better in the description for `set -m': Immediately before the shell issues a prompt after completion of the background job, a message reporting the exit status of the background job shall be written to standard error. If a foreground job stops, the shell shall write a message to standard error to that effect, formatted as described by the jobs utility. In addition, if a job changes status other than exiting (for example, if it stops for input or output or is stopped by a SIGSTOP signal), the shell shall write a similar message immediately prior to writing the next prompt. This makes sense, the behavior demonstrated in OP doesn't. On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 5:17 PM G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your choice of term puzzles me. I'd call it a "revision". Thanks for correcting and apologies for any confusion. This isn't my native language and I don't speak it outside the internet.
