From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10838 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1998 22:17:52 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Oct 1998 22:17:52 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA01588; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:11:03 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 17:10:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:14:42 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Zefram , Stefan Monnier Cc: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: jobs command and pipes Message-ID: <19981030161442.B18571@emsphone.com> References: <5lemrqrpqp.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu> <199810301701.RAA31371@diamond.tao.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.94.3i In-Reply-To: <199810301701.RAA31371@diamond.tao.co.uk>; from "Zefram" on Fri Oct 30 17:01:18 GMT 1998 X-OS: FreeBSD 2.2.7-STABLE Resent-Message-ID: <"1SQ6t.0.7O.mbZEs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1910 X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu In the last episode (Oct 30), Zefram said: > Stefan Monnier wrote: > >Now the question is: why "on the left hand side" rather the other ? > >Zsh isn't particularly lean and mean, os mayb eit makes sense to > >offer the choice so that "jobs | something" can work (and so that we > >can choose which process' exit status will be used for the whole > >pipe's exit status ? > > We almost have that already. "jobs >>(tr a-z A-Z)" works, except > that it doesn't wait for the tr to terminate. Perhaps that should be > changed. If they're treated like background jobs, should "wait" wait for them to finish? Should "jobs" display them? I vote for treating them like pipes. -Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com