From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk ([128.240.233.51]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <25037>; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:47:56 -0400 Received: from bygate.ncl.ac.uk by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id (8.7.6/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:17:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (ngmt@localhost) by bygate.ncl.ac.uk (8.6.7/8.6.x-cf revision 8 for SunOS 4.1.x) id OAA10812; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:17:57 +0100 From: "Gerry.Tomlinson" Message-Id: <199906111317.OAA10812@bygate.ncl.ac.uk> Subject: Re: backgrounded jobs To: Elliott.Hughes@genedata.com (Elliott Hughes) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:17:56 -0400 Cc: rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu In-Reply-To: <199906100948.LAA1263150@relay.ch.genedata.com> from "Elliott Hughes" at Jun 10, 99 05:48:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > something i had in my own hacked-about copy of > Byron's rc is a line that output not just the pid of > a backgrounded job, rather the string "kill %i\n", on > the basis that this was the number one use of the > pid. it's particularly handy in 9term, but probably > just as useful in xterm. > > how would people feel about making this part of > the distribution? i admit that it looks odd at first > because traditional shells don't work like that; you > probably have to know why its saying that not to > be disconcerted by it, but i think its usefulness > outweighs this, not least because rc users aren't > likely to be neophyte shell users who want > everything to be just like it is in sh (or bash these > days, i suppose). who's to say kill is the number one use of the pid? there are other uses such as ps l and strace -p but i wouldn't want them displayed automatically either. gerry -- gerry.tomlinson@newcastle.ac.uk computing officer department of computing science, university of newcastle