A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=760 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                geoffclare
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1
Issue ID:                   760
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Error
Severity:                   Objection
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     Interpretation Required
Name:                       Geoff Clare 
Organization:               The Open Group 
User Reference:              
Section:                    2.9.3.1 
Page Number:                2342 
Line Number:                74502 
Interp Status:              Approved 
Final Accepted Text:        See http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=760#c1929

====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2013-10-07 09:56 UTC
Last Modified:              2019-06-08 06:11 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    asynchronous list assignment of stdin should depend
on job control
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0004410) stephane (reporter) - 2019-06-08 06:11
 http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=760#c4410 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Even for non-interactive shells, redirecting stdin to /dev/null when
asynchronous   is not particularly useful, and has to be worked around
probably at least as often as it is useful.

Some shells don't do it. zsh never does it, bash does not do it when that
asynchronous list is one single pipeline.

It may be more useful to leave it unspecified then (that might have been
the original intention behind the original text: don't do it when
interactive, unspecified when not).

It may help to add an informative section that shows how to work around
it:

"{ cmd <&3 3<&- & } 3<&0" instead of "cmd &"

BTW, that whole 2.9.3.1 section is incorrect as it refers to "commands"
instead of "AND-OR lists". The whole part about the PID doesn't make sense
in the context of an "AND-OR list" with more than one part. I'll raise a
separate issue about that. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     New Issue                                    
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Name                      => Geoff Clare     
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Organization              => The Open Group  
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Section                   => 2.9.3.1         
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Page Number               => 2342            
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Line Number               => 74502           
2013-10-07 09:56 geoffclare     Interp Status             => ---             
2013-10-17 15:50 nick           Interp Status            --- => Pending      
2013-10-17 15:50 nick           Note Added: 0001929                          
2013-10-17 15:50 nick           Status                   New => Interpretation
Required
2013-10-17 15:50 nick           Resolution               Open => Accepted    
2013-10-17 15:50 nick           Final Accepted Text       => See
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=760#c1929
2013-10-17 15:59 nick           Tag Attached: tc2-2008                       
2014-02-21 15:39 ajosey         Interp Status            Pending => Proposed 
2014-02-21 15:39 ajosey         Note Added: 0002154                          
2014-03-25 13:41 ajosey         Interp Status            Proposed => Approved
2014-03-25 13:41 ajosey         Note Added: 0002197                          
2019-06-08 06:11 stephane       Note Added: 0004410                          
======================================================================


Reply via email to