From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6191 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 15:19:56 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Sep 1999 15:19:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 12235 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 1999 15:19:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8113 Received: (qmail 12228 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 15:19:45 -0000 Message-Id: <9909301444.AA15947@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: "sh" job control In-Reply-To: "Zefram"'s message of "Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:53:06 DFT." Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:44:01 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson Zefram wrote: > Peter Stephenson wrote: > >Clint Adams wrote: > >> The following patch introduces an option "shjobcontrol" (bad name?) > >> which skips the checkjobs() call. > > I think CHECK_JOBS (with the opposite sense) would be a better name. That would mean it has the same sense as HUP, which is logical. > >It's probably because zsh doesn't set nohup by default. As it's set > >by default in sh mode, this seems a reasonable combination. > > What does POSIX say about it? I can't see anything in the Single UNIX Specification, anyway. The nohup description refers to the sh description, but doesn't seem to specify it one way or another. By the way, looking at the standard, I discovered the following are supposed to work. % echo $( echo # a comment) ) % echo $( cat <<\eof a here doc with ) eof ) That would basically mean recursively parsing the $(...) straight away, which could be quite a lot of work. I'm delighted to find it doesn't work with HPUX 10.20's POSIX sh, either. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy