From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3747 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2010 15:35:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 15306 Received: (qmail 9286 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2010 15:35:19 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <100820083501.ZM29362@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:35:01 -0700 X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I just occured to me that when the zsh manual describes something as "asynchronous" it means not synchronous with respect to the parent zsh, e.g., that the shell will not wait for it. That is distinct from whether it is [not] synchronous with respect to other commands in the same syntactic construct. So if we're going to cause zsh to wait for >(...), we should change the description in the documentation to no longer say "asynchronous".