On 02-Oct-2009, Paul Bone wrote: > I have several screen sessions running: > > pb...@paper:~$ screen -r > There are several suitable screens on: > 13468.677_project2 (01/10/09 16:03:13) (Detached) > 10259.bug66 (23/09/09 11:09:18) (Detached) > 6870.mail (23/09/09 09:00:53) (Attached) > Type "screen [-d] -r [pid.]tty.host" to resume one of them. > > And I want to resume working on 677_project2, so I use the > unambiguous prefix '677'. > > pb...@paper:~$ screen -r 677 > There is no screen to be resumed matching 677. […]
> I understand that a number might represent a PID rather than a name,
> but the full name was definitely unambiguous, and since I had no
> screens running as PID 677 the short name should also be considered
> unambiguous.
Also of note: the ‘screen(1)’ man page gives the following synopsis:
screen -r [[pid.]tty[.host]]
screen -r sessionowner/[[pid.]tty[.host]]
The sequence ‘677’ can't possibly be specifying a PID by the above
synopsis:
* Is it matching “pid ‘.’ tty ‘.’ host”? No, since there are no
periods in the string.
* Is it matching “pid ‘.’ tty”? again no, for the same reason.
In other words, the only way to specify a PID to be resumed is if it
is immediately followed by a period, then the TTY. There is no
allowance by the above synopsis for specifying a PID alone as a
sequence of digits.
So, if the code is attempting to match a PID from a sequence
consisting only of digits, it is not conforming to the documentation.
--
\ “I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. |
`\ Sold a number 3 for 28 bucks.” —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
