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 covers co-processes, but at least
> for me "background processes" aka. jobs refer to those spawned with `&'
> where co-processes are the definitive term for those spawned with `|&',
> hence my brain wants to grep for "co-proc" and see `$!' mentioning it
> to confirm that `$!' is indeed not just about jobs.
>
> > for the reader, i think the idea of background is easier to understand
> > as an umberella term, rather than asynchronous, even if it's maybe not
> > so correct.
> Fair enough; I think the last diff is a slight improvement due to the
> above mentioned, but I also don't have a strong opinion about it.
>
> If the impression is that I'm complicating stuff then I'll gladly drop
> the diff.
>
well, maybe someone else will chip in. but i don;t see it as an
improvement myself.
jmc
