On 2017-05-11 11:04:56 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Sigh. The message you responded to that prompted this sub-discussion was
> the one in which I asked about shell behavior when monitor mode is set in
> a non-interactive shell:
>
> > I'm curious what you think the shell should do in this case. Remember
^^^^^^^^^^^^
and "this case" was "if bash, then use 'set -m'":
"* With bash and posh, I get:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
If I add "set -m", then bash behaves like [...]"
^^^^
(I did not mention posh with "set -m", as it does not support it:
posh: set: -m: unknown option)
So, I think that you should have been clearer if you wanted the other
shells to be in monitor mode too.
> > that it doesn't get the SIGINT. Other shells seem to fake it and act
> > like they received a SIGINT, and abort the entire script. Should bash
> > stop the loop, should it kill itself with SIGINT, or should it continue?
>
> Your response was as I quoted, and the thread went from there. But that's
> OK; I'm done with it.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
