Re: 5.3-alpha: the `jobs' builtin prints foreground dead jobs with function substitutions

[Chet Ramey]

On 4/30/24 10:29 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:

> > I don't see any reason there should be any difference for a process that
> > was run in one of the new non-forking command substitution type things, nor
> > when jobs is run from one of those.
>
> The difference is that the jobs are still in the jobs list here (for
> various reasons, you don't want the jobs list to change during nofork
> comsubs). 

Maybe it's time to relax this restriction.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/