Re: Checking executability for asynchronous commands

[Eli Schwartz]

On 12/27/20 5:01 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > If you have the pid of an asynchronous command -- and the easiest way to get 
> > that pid
> > is by referencing $! after it was started -- you can call `wait' with that pid
> > to retrieve the status, even if it's already terminated.
>
> Would you care if waiting on such identifications for background processes
> will occasionally be forgotten?
>
> How many efforts would you invest to add potentially missing wait function 
> calls?

Would you care if configuring bash to wait on identification of 
background processes will occasionally be forgotten?

Would you care if checking the status of foreground processes and doing 
different things based on success or failure will occasionally be forgotten?

Would you care if <insert important part of script> will occasionally be 
forgotten?


I'm not sure I understand the question? Writing programs in *any* 
programming language requires attention to detail and effectively 
conveying your need to the programming language. bash is no exception, 
even if people have a terrible habit of treating bash like it should be 
special or different merely because it uses subprocesses a lot, and is 
popular.

A stronger argument must be made for new features rather than merely 
"sometimes people are extremely forgetful, we need a new language 
feature that doesn't fit in well and doesn't behave consistently, so 
they can be forgetful about that instead".

--
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature