Re: Removing subshell from zargs (see "zargs with -P intermittently failing")

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:39 AM Bart Schaefer
<schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Harmless, I guess, but potentially confusing enough that the subshell
> wrapper should be left in place?

One additional issue -- if the subshell is removed and you interrupt
zargs -P, you get something like this:

^C%
%
[9]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[21]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[10]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[20]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[11]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[19]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[12]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[18]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[13]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[17]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[14]    done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[16]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }
%
[15]  - done       { "${call[@]}"; }

All things considered, I think using the subshell is in fact preferable.