CHECK_JOBS for suspended jobs only?

CHECK_JOBS for suspended jobs only?

[Haakon Riiser]

I have disabled the HUP option, so it is safe to do

  % foo &
  % exit

I would like to disable the "you have running jobs" warning for jobs
that are running in the background, but /not/ for suspended jobs;
NO_CHECK_JOBS disables both.  Is this fixable without hacking the
source code?

Also, I have a completly unrelated question which is too silly to
warrant its own posting. :-)  If I type "|" after expanding a name
with the completion system, the "|" is inserted to the /left/ of the
cursor instead of /under/ the cursor.  This doesn't break anything
because the completion system inserts a space after the completed
word, but it feels a bit weird so I had to ask why this happens.

zsh 4.0.6 (i386-slackware-linux-gnu).

-- 
 Haakon

Re: CHECK_JOBS for suspended jobs only?

[Zefram]

Haakon Riiser wrote:
>Also, I have a completly unrelated question which is too silly to
>warrant its own posting. :-)  If I type "|" after expanding a name
>with the completion system, the "|" is inserted to the /left/ of the
>cursor instead of /under/ the cursor.  This doesn't break anything
>because the completion system inserts a space after the completed
>word, but it feels a bit weird so I had to ask why this happens.

This is suffix removal.  The completion system added a space after the
completed name in case you wanted to type another command argument next,
but instead you typed a "|", so you obviously didn't need the space so
it removed it before adding the "|".  Suffix removal is more useful in
some other cases, such as the removable "/" after completing a directory
name or the removable "}" after completing a variable name inside "${".

-zefram

Re: CHECK_JOBS for suspended jobs only?

[Peter Stephenson]

"Haakon Riiser" wrote:
> I have disabled the HUP option, so it is safe to do
> 
>   % foo &
>   % exit
> 
> I would like to disable the "you have running jobs" warning for jobs
> that are running in the background, but /not/ for suspended jobs;
> NO_CHECK_JOBS disables both.  Is this fixable without hacking the
> source code?

Looking at the code the answer seems to be no, though it's a pretty
reasonable idea.

You can of course `disown' jobs you don't want to know about.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************