From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3682 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 14:53:18 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Sep 1999 14:53:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 8592 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 1999 14:53:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8111 Received: (qmail 8578 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 14:53:08 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: "sh" job control In-Reply-To: <9909301408.AA16679@ibmth.df.unipi.it> from Peter Stephenson at "Sep 30, 1999 4: 8: 2 pm" To: pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it (Peter Stephenson) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:53:06 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram 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. Btw, you put SH_JOB_CONTROL out of alphabetical sequence. >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? -zefram