Re: PATCH: "sh" job control

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Zefram wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote:
> >Clint Adams wrote:
> >> The following patch introduces an option "shjobcontrol" (bad name?)
> >> which skips the checkjobs() call.
> 
> I think CHECK_JOBS (with the opposite sense) would be a better name.

That would mean it has the same sense as HUP, which is logical.

> >It's probably because zsh doesn't set nohup by default. As it's set
> >by default in sh mode, this seems a reasonable combination.
> 
> What does POSIX say about it?

I can't see anything in the Single UNIX Specification, anyway.  The nohup
description refers to the sh description, but doesn't seem to specify it
one way or another.

By the way, looking at the standard, I discovered the following are
supposed to work.

% echo $(
echo # a comment)
)
% echo $(
cat <<\eof
a here doc with )
eof
)

That would basically mean recursively parsing the $(...) straight away,
which could be quite a lot of work.  I'm delighted to find it doesn't work
with HPUX 10.20's POSIX sh, either.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy