From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1658 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 16:34:14 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 16:34:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13569 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2001 16:34:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15658 Received: (qmail 13558 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 16:34:06 -0000 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1010817163400.ZM14169@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:34:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2306.998064324@csr.com> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: Shell exits on bad coproc redirection" (Aug 17, 5:05pm) References: <2306.998064324@csr.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: Shell exits on bad coproc redirection MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 17, 5:05pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: Shell exits on bad coproc redirection } } > Sun May 18 18:57:08 1997 Zoltan Hidvegi } > } > Do not handle SIGPIPE specially for shells with job control ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [">" now quotes something different] } > paranoia. The issue was that if a `tee' spawned by a multio exits early, } > the parent shell will get SIGPIPE and exit, too; but that's probably not a } > bug. } } Multios and coprocs are pretty similar in this respect. I'm not } particularly attached to `probably not a bug'; I would probably trade it in } for `seems to reflect the current intention of the code' in return for a go } on your playstation. If we were talking about a shell script, I'd be completely in agreement. But Zoltan's log entry is talking about shells with job control. Why should an interactive shell ever exit on SIGPIPE? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net