Robert Elz wrote, on 12 May 2022: > > | > I think they should remain independent. > | Sure, I agree. > > I don't. I cannot think of a single reason why the shell should be > forced to maintain two separate lists of its child processes. The jobs > table needs to have them, so processes in the job can be identified as > they finish. Duplicating that in another table, for no particular reason > I can imagine makes no sense to me. Still, if others want to implement > it that way, I don't object - but the standard has never required that, > and should not, absent some very good reason, be changed to require it now.
The standard needs to specify them separately because, as per the mail I just sent in reply to Chet, job numbers identify process groups and therefore cannot identify asynchronous commands started with job control disabled. However, it is an internal implementation detail how that is managed. If you want to have one table with some flag to say whether each entry is a job or a "known process ID that's not a job", that's fine. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
