[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m' |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0500 |
> > Nothing wrong, but can be made more efficient because "| grep" means
> > another subprocess which can be eliminated if the shell silents the
> > Terminate command in the first place.
Then why not try the approach I outlined in the previous message, instead
of sticking with something that you don't like?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Jeff Chua, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Chet Ramey, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Jeff Chua, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Chet Ramey, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Jeff Chua, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Jeff Chua, 2009/11/10
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Pierre Gaston, 2009/11/11
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Pierre Gaston, 2009/11/11
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Pierre Gaston, 2009/11/11
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Chet Ramey, 2009/11/11
- Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m',
Chet Ramey <=
Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m', Jan Schampera, 2009/11/07