On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:30:55PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:06:32PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > hmm. so then the current text ("the last background process") already
> > covers all these cases. why single out co-processes?
> Yes, "background process" technically
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:06:32PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> hmm. so then the current text ("the last background process") already
> covers all these cases. why single out co-processes?
Yes, "background process" technically covers co-processes, but at least
for me "background processes" aka. j
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:59:43PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 05:40:07PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > i'm worried that you're blurring the distinction between asynchronous
> > and co-process for the reader. i think that's relevant because, as you
> > say, a page like
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 05:40:07PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> i'm worried that you're blurring the distinction between asynchronous
> and co-process for the reader. i think that's relevant because, as you
> say, a page like sh(1) does not document co-processes, whereas ksh(1)
> does.
You raise
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 05:57:01PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Otherwise it is not clear whether $! will be set or not. This way,
> `/Co-proc' brings me to *all* relevant spots in the manual.
>
> Snippet to demonstrate how $! is set for an asynchronous process:
>
> $ ksh -c ': |& echo $!
Otherwise it is not clear whether $! will be set or not. This way,
`/Co-proc' brings me to *all* relevant spots in the manual.
Snippet to demonstrate how $! is set for an asynchronous process:
$ ksh -c ': |& echo $!'
67163
FWIW, sh(1) doesn't document Co-processes (whis is fine
