On 3/26/19 8:12 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:55:53 +0100
> From: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> | Even better, IMHO: "wait waits for the next job to terminate"
>
> Something should allow for there being no waiting involved at all
> if some job has already terminated but has not been waited for.
Why? `wait -n' collects the exit statuses of terminated jobs one at
a time. It's not really important to detail how much time is spent
waiting.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU [email protected] http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
