From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24769 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2001 19:31:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Oct 2001 19:31:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 519 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2001 19:31:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16060 Received: (qmail 496 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2001 19:31:02 -0000 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <011015123054.ZM8724@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:30:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1003169603.2222.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Comments: In reply to Borsenkow Andrej "Re: Buglette & Fix for checkrmall in 4.0.2" (Oct 15, 10:13pm) References: <8465.1003165637@csr.com> <1003169603.2222.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (5.0.0 30July97) To: Zsh hackers list Subject: Re: Buglette & Fix for checkrmall in 4.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Oct 15, 10:13pm, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > Subject: Re: Buglette & Fix for checkrmall in 4.0.2 > On =F0=CE=C4, 2001-10-15 at 21:07, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > Bart Schaefer wrote: > > > This raises the question of whether a backgrounded subshell should = still > > > have the INTERACTIVE option set. > = > I have very vague recollection that I complained about this once and > somebody (Bart? Peter?) gave me valid reasons why it should not be > unset. But may be it was another option, There are reasons to leave interactive set in a subshell. I'm not sure there are reasons to leave it set in a *backgrounded* subshell. Perhaps it's too difficult to tell whether a subshell is being backgrounded?=