On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, 03:21 Chet Ramey, <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > Why not just wait for all process substitutions?
> Process substitutions [...] are not expected to survive their read/write > file descriptors becoming invalid. You shouldn't need to `wait' for them; > they're not true asynchronous processes. > An exception to this would be shell scripts that are interactive, and (would like to) use process substitutions as output filters to show stuff to the user. "Wait for none" is clearly unsatisfactory, but "wait for all" is also unsatisfactory if we have intentionally backgrounded processes as well as user interaction. -Martin
