Paul Eggert writes: > > "sleep 0" sleeps for zero seconds, and "timeout 0 FOO" > should timeout in zero seconds as well. Currently, > it doesn't; it times out in an infinite number of seconds. > I see why, from the internals (alarm (0) is a special > call intended to cancel alarms). However, 'timeout' shouldn't > be exposing those internals to users; it should behave like > 'sleep' does, as that's more consistent. >
What's the difference between running a command with a 0 second timeout and not running the command at all? It could be killed before it even gets scheduled. -- Alan Curry
